# Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.



## P F Tinmore

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.

*Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Naila and the Uprising | Robert Wright & Julia Bacha [The Wright Show]

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Private Roundtable with Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Book Talk: The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi and Raja Shehadeh in conversation

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why are Student Governments Obsessed with Israel   AJC Advocacy Anywhere

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Linda Sarsour Shares Her Empowering Story Of Becoming A Figure Of Activism In Her New Memoir

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ali Abunimah:* Israeli Apartheid & Beyond.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Book talk: "Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five"*


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Um, palestine is, in essence, Israel. It was a fictional Roman name imposed on ancient Israel, later adopted by European Christians. The British called the British Mandate “palestine“ which became the modern state of Israel.

There was no entity palestine in the 400 years of the preceding Ottoman Empire.

Palestine not very authentic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Best Interview for 2020 - What's Life Like in Palestine? Kim Iversen*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*LINDA SARSOUR SPEECH AT "NOT BACKING DOWN" PALESTINIAN RIGHTS PANEL AT UMASS*


----------



## MartyNYC

Arabs in Israel: In Israel we are free. “Peaceful and beautiful.” We do not want to live under “palestinian” rule!


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

Ahmad Al-Sarraf: “Israel is committed to democracy while we refuse to even speak of it. Israel has given minorities rights that citizens in Arab countries do not even dream of. Freedom of worship exceeds any Arab or Islamic country.” 

The day we failed to learn from it


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

Arab-Muslim Israeli: Israel is light amid darkness


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ali Abunimah - The Battle for Justice in Palestine

*


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> *Ali Abunimah - The Battle for Justice in Palestine
> 
> *



Palestine Is Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

*


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> *Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
> 
> *



Occupied palestinian territories? No name? People usually name territories. Oh, that’s right, the historical names are Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied palestinian territories? No name? People usually name territories. Oh, that’s right, the historical names are Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish territories.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians call it Palestine. Who would know better than the natives?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why is the US saying illegal Israeli settlements are okay? *


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> *Why is the US saying illegal Israeli settlements are okay? *



There are no palestinian territories. People name territories.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied palestinian territories? No name? People usually name territories. Oh, that’s right, the historical names are Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians call it Palestine. Who would know better than the natives?
Click to expand...


Still trolling after 11+ years and 58,000+ posts? Psychiatry can help.

Palestine was a fictional Roman name imposed on ancient Israel. Later, it was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that became modern Israel. Palestine is a European term for Jews’ historic homeland...


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied palestinian territories? No name? People usually name territories. Oh, that’s right, the historical names are Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians call it Palestine. Who would know better than the natives?
Click to expand...


The native palestinians? Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews. Fakestinians ⤵️


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Welcome To “Palestine”!


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Palestinians’ return to Gaza? Except, the name Gaza is Hebrew in origin, Aza. Gaza is the Greek form. Are Palestinians Jewish or Greek?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Jewish Judea 2,000 years ago, with its Jewish Capital Jerusalem...


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that resulted in Israeli statehood. There wasn’t a place palestine founded by Arabs, “palestinians“ (Arabs), or any Middle Eastern people...


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

Arab-Muslim Israeli: Israel is light amid darkness


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

Ironic, palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews, in retribution for the Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation. Later, European Christians adopted the name and it stuck. Nothing to do with Arabs or any Middle Eastern people. Had Jews not rebelled, there would be no palestine or palestinians today.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## Picaro

Every time I hear the 'Jewish revolt against Roman Occupation' fable I'm reminded of that scene from *Band Of Brothers* when the GI stands up and yells at the captured Germans marching down the highway center ....

*What the hell were you thinking???'*

lol


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Owen Jones meets Salma Karmi-Ayyoub | 'The IHRA antisemitism debate is toxic'

*


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> *Owen Jones meets Salma Karmi-Ayyoub | 'The IHRA antisemitism debate is toxic'
> 
> *



Owen Jones. The joke of Britain.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Disappearing Palestine with Ash Sarkar and Salma Karmi-Ayyoub*


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> *Disappearing Palestine with Ash Sarkar and Salma Karmi-Ayyoub*



Palestine: Fictional European name for Jews’ homeland. Palestine is bogus...


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Good demonstration of the kind of the people and low standards,
that have turned the academia in the US into a sad joke of the Radical Left.

These professors are high on racial rhetoric
and low on any facts or method of proof.

And if you're prepared to jeopardize your diploma, face public shaming. physical violence.,
dare ask any of the activist leftist _professors -_

*"How come Hamas and PA never allowed Africans into positions of power"?*

At best there will be crickets...


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*"I Heart Hamas: And Other Things I'm Afraid to Tell You." Interview With Jennifer Jajeh

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jewish settlers: Do you have relations with Palestinians?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


>


The funniest part is @ 41:00


----------



## P F Tinmore

*2015-08-19 "Ferguson to Palestine" Rania Masri and Ajamu Dillahunt at C3HUU*


----------



## Dogmaphobe

This thread should be entitled "propaganda, propaganda and propaganda".


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israeli policy towards Gaza with ILAN PAPPÉ and SHIR HEVER*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Black Lives Matter, Israeli Annexation and BDS: Robin Kelley, Rabab Abdulhadi, Nerdeen Kiswani*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israeli-US Police Cooperation, Israel's Annexation Plans & Media Discrepancy on Palestinian Deaths*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *"I Heart Hamas: And Other Things I'm Afraid to Tell You." Interview With Jennifer Jajeh
> 
> *



How is that different from David Duke's love for the KKK?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *2015-08-19 "Ferguson to Palestine" Rania Masri and Ajamu Dillahunt at C3HUU*





P F Tinmore said:


> *Black Lives Matter, Israeli Annexation and BDS: Robin Kelley, Rabab Abdulhadi, Nerdeen Kiswani*




I haven't seen a more cynical appropriation of the Black movement,
is there cause they will not manipulate?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israeli-US Police Cooperation, Israel's Annexation Plans & Media Discrepancy on Palestinian Deaths*



Wow, Shir Hever invented so many strawmans to make the choir happy,
that he managed to ridicule every point that he made.

No wonder he doesn't dare debate anyone.

At one point he goes about how military censorship prevents reporting deaths before the families were reached, or before they were actually found. But as if not enough, piles on top intentionally misquoting what PM Netanyahu said to the family. Which shows not not the least his lack journalistic integrity and standards, but lack of basic human respect.

I get it that many journalists want to be first to report on sensationalist tragic events,
but no family wants to learn about their deceased from the news.
That's not their job - some limits of decency are required.

Journalist are neither physicians, or police officers, and it's not their professional or moral right, to "bury the dead" for sensationalist headlines, before any evidence is yet found.

That is why there're formal laws of procedure, that can take several hours until the social workers have reached the family to notify and support them.

Exactly for the journalists who lack the moral compass to see these basic principles of moral decency and professional integrity, that these guidelines also involve legal responsibility.

And the root for the _"_*Media Discrepancy on Palestinian Deaths"*_, _it makes headlines,
the leftist media and academia only sees value in their image of death and victimhood,
anything falling out of line of shallow identity politics is disregarded.

So they've conditioned attention whores,
and attention is only gratified for plying the act.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why I'm Not Giving Up on Two States: A Conversation with Daniel Gordis – AJC Advocacy Anywhere*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel, Anti-BDS Laws In US, Abby Martin & Election Interference (Christy Dopf, Dack Rouleau)*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel, Anti-BDS Laws In US, Abby Martin & Election Interference (Christy Dopf, Dack Rouleau)*



They compare anti-BDS laws as an attempt to shut criticism
comparable to that voiced against Russia and China.

Yet, when criticizing these nations does not include questioning loyalty of these minorities,
and no other movement includes in it's "criticism" a call to annihilate their nations.

Only one  minority is targeted that way.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>


I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.

They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.

If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.


Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.
Click to expand...


If you're not frauds and didn't funnel people's donations to Islamist militants,
then why the need to lie about the lawsuit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not frauds and didn't funnel people's donations to Islamist militants,
> then why the need to lie about the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

What lie?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not frauds and didn't funnel people's donations to Islamist militants,
> then why the need to lie about the lawsuit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie?
Click to expand...


Why did you have to lie that the lawsuit was for mere speaking,
instead of actually addressing the criminal offense the court decided to investigate?

Not yet entered the court,
but that hat is already burning on the thieves...


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not frauds and didn't funnel people's donations to Islamist militants,
> then why the need to lie about the lawsuit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you have to lie that the lawsuit was for mere speaking,
> instead of actually addressing the criminal offense the court decided to investigate?
> 
> Not yet entered the court,
> but that hat is already burning on the thieves...
Click to expand...

What criminal offense?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quiet telling that these Cancel Culture warriors resort to anecdotes about being sued for merely speaking without revealing what was the actual lawsuit against the organization.
> 
> They're are sued for funneling donations to Hamas using the disguise of an NGO.
> 
> If they're "against militarization" and all those liberal causes as they claim,
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> And if the accusations are clearly false, they do not mislead their donors and funnel their money to Hamas as they claim, then why this strange PR campaign where they don't even address the actual accusation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they're frauds for funneling the donations to an Islamist militant organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one of Israel's bullshit allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not frauds and didn't funnel people's donations to Islamist militants,
> then why the need to lie about the lawsuit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you have to lie that the lawsuit was for mere speaking,
> instead of actually addressing the criminal offense the court decided to investigate?
> 
> Not yet entered the court,
> but that hat is already burning on the thieves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What criminal offense?
Click to expand...


Your fraudulent collection of donations, under the disguise of humanitarian means,
in order to fund Islamist militants.

Just like last week, was revealed you funneled Holland's aid to fund the Jihadi garbage,
who murdered Rina Shnerb Hy"d.

Isn't it time for you to spread those FBI investigation leaflets again?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Role of Palestine in the US Elections

*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Role of Palestine in the US Elections
> 
> *




What makes the Arab occupation of Judea
more justifiable than the American occupation of Milwaukee?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine Podcast #41: Yara Harawi & Rania Muhareb - ‘Israeli Annexation: Ramifications& Resistance’*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Susan Abulhawa on "Israel Beyond Technology and Apartheid".*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The End of Zionism: Thoughts and Next Steps*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The End of Zionism: Thoughts and Next Steps*




Abunilie never misses an opportunity to climb imaginary pedestals...
Wonder what the revolutionary statist mobs will do to him later.









						Israel-Haters Caught Inventing Fake BDS Victory Again
					

Last week, serial liar and antisemite Ali "Abumination" Abunimah gloated about a supposed BDS victory in his Electronic Intishmatte




					www.israellycool.com


----------



## rylah

Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...

But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.


Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
Click to expand...


A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
or just your pertaining to read people's minds?

No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.

Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.

Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
Click to expand...

I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?

There are more problems.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
Click to expand...


That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
without any connection to the conversation.

Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
without trying to manipulate and mislead?

Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
Click to expand...

I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.

Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.

Like Nablus, for example.







The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
Click to expand...


Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.

But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.

They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.

What makes you think you know better,
let alone  better than the people actually involved?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.


I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.

He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.

So whose resources will the city depend on?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
Click to expand...


The entire country,
Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.

It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.

In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
Click to expand...

Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
Click to expand...


Again you assume that you know better,
but don't actually present any substance or argument.

I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...

Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.

Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.

*Be sincere for once*

Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you assume that you know better,
> but don't actually present any substance or argument.
> 
> I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
> but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...
> 
> Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
> at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.
> 
> Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
> rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
> maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.
> 
> *Be sincere for once*
> 
> Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
Click to expand...

Nice rant, but if you want more info on my post just ask.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you assume that you know better,
> but don't actually present any substance or argument.
> 
> I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
> but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...
> 
> Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
> at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.
> 
> Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
> rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
> maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.
> 
> *Be sincere for once*
> 
> Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, but if you want more info on my post just ask.
Click to expand...


For 2 pages you have been triyng to deflect the conversation
to anything BUT what was discussed in either of the videos we posted.

Can you even address any of what Rudy and Khefa actually said,
or just trying to switch the subject?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you assume that you know better,
> but don't actually present any substance or argument.
> 
> I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
> but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...
> 
> Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
> at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.
> 
> Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
> rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
> maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.
> 
> *Be sincere for once*
> 
> Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, but if you want more info on my post just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For 2 pages you have been triyng to deflect the conversation
> to anything BUT what was discussed in either of the videos we posted.
> 
> Can you even address any of what Rudy and Khefa actually said,
> or just trying to switch the subject?
Click to expand...

I did bring up an important issue and got an incoherent response.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you assume that you know better,
> but don't actually present any substance or argument.
> 
> I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
> but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...
> 
> Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
> at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.
> 
> Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
> rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
> maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.
> 
> *Be sincere for once*
> 
> Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, but if you want more info on my post just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For 2 pages you have been triyng to deflect the conversation
> to anything BUT what was discussed in either of the videos we posted.
> 
> Can you even address any of what Rudy and Khefa actually said,
> or just trying to switch the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did bring up an important issue and got an incoherent response.
Click to expand...


Maybe an important issue, but you only made general statements,
that address nothing of what Rudy and Kefah were discussing.
And actually in contradiction to what they said.

We can later discuss all those _important issues,_
after you address the original discussion:
*things Rudy and Kefah agree upon.*

Otherwise what is the point in posting videos
if you're not even willing to discuss them?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually all these talks are just choirs of opportunists cynically bandwagoning on the conflict,
> for their own benefit of position, attention and income. All that BDS, Peace Now none sense...
> 
> But some talks will go historic for being REAL and MATURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rochman claims to favor rights and equality but he doesn't mean it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A character judgement based on anything he said, did,
> or just your pertaining to read people's minds?
> 
> No wonder we never hear self-criticism in anti-Israel ranks,
> you folks can't handle anything beyond a one track conformist preaching.
> 
> Rudy can express just whatever he thinks, criticize and praise,
> and not just him but on both sides, that's the point of this whole format, and kudos for that.
> 
> Was there anything he said you actually didn't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall him ever mentioning the refugees. If he is going to ignore half of the Palestinians, where are rights and equality?
> 
> There are more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because you just disregard him by default,
> without any connection to the conversation.
> 
> Why can't you even listen, or actually address the message,
> without trying to manipulate and mislead?
> 
> Some maturity...would not kill a grumpy old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just listened to it again. He did not mention refugees.
> 
> Another thing he said that contradicted himself is the autonomous zones where the Palestinians would govern themselves. Then he mentioned annexing area C. He seems to imply that the Palestinians will govern their own population centers. A city is not a population center but an economic center. It includes the city and the surrounding resources it needs to survive. A city without its resources is on welfare.
> 
> Like Nablus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nablus district is Nablus and its surrounding resources it needs to survive. Most of Nablus would be in Israel. How can that work without its resources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't actually understand what he was saying,
> and he didn't mention no annexation or autonomous zones.
> 
> But what he said and what you say are actually very similar,
> namely the innate Arab relationship the the cities as separate economic centers,
> with their natural social structure of each tribe/community leaders, as opposed to a unified vision of economy and separate national sovereignty. And that resonates 100% with your previous post, what Kefah Abukhdeir was saying about Hamas and Fatah being essential heretics by Islamic values, in their striving for a separate national sovereignty. Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> They both agree, it's a classic case of 2 people involved in the conflict agreeing on something,
> and an opinionated shmuck from 1000's miles away jumps to disagree seeking attention.
> 
> What makes you think you know better,
> let alone  better than the people actually involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy doesn't propose Shchem to be a separate city, but full integration into the country economy and society with respect to the social structure of both populations and the mutual goals that do align.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that a city needs its surrounding resources. It is a center of that district for a reason.
> 
> He is saying, and it already is de facto, that the surrounding area will be Israel.
> 
> So whose resources will the city depend on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country,
> Shchem will be no different than Tel-Aviv or Be'er Sheva.
> 
> It's the usual municipal structural division of regions in one country,
> like in regional areas as upper Galilee, Beit Shean Valley, the Yizre'el Valley,
> all have smaller municipal units, some encompassing single large cities, some several small ones
> with surrounding villages, some others follow natural cultural and geographic conditions, but all as part of one state and economy.
> 
> In what way does it make sense to insist on further fragmentation of economies and jurisdictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you assume that you know better,
> but don't actually present any substance or argument.
> 
> I'm saying virtually the same basics things you've been banging about for years,
> but you just need to disagree because it comes from an Israeli...
> 
> Frankly it seems you're finding yourself threatened by becoming irrelevant
> at the notion that the 2 sides can actually agree on something fundamental.
> 
> Clearly, because your do not seek the good of either side,
> rather to feed up a blown out ego at the expense of other people's conflicts,
> maliciously seeking to thrive off and prolong disagreement even where there not.
> 
> *Be sincere for once*
> 
> Why can't you stand Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, but if you want more info on my post just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For 2 pages you have been triyng to deflect the conversation
> to anything BUT what was discussed in either of the videos we posted.
> 
> Can you even address any of what Rudy and Khefa actually said,
> or just trying to switch the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did bring up an important issue and got an incoherent response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe an important issue, but you only made general statements,
> that address nothing of what Rudy and Kefah were discussing.
> And actually in contradiction to what they said.
> 
> We can later discuss all those _important issues,_
> after you address the original discussion:
> *things Rudy and Kefah agree upon.*
> 
> Otherwise what is the point in posting videos
> if you're not even willing to discuss them?
Click to expand...

Like what?


----------



## rylah

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.


----------



## P F Tinmore

nomatic


rylah said:


> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.


One of the places that Rudy goes off the rails is that he defines Palestinian cities and villages as nomadic. That is a blatant contradiction in terms. Then he bases his conclusions on false premise.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> nomatic
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the places that Rudy goes off the rails is that he defines Palestinian cities and villages as nomadic. That is a blatant contradiction in terms. Then he bases his conclusions on false premise.
Click to expand...


He was referring to the social structure,
not the cities themselves.

How is that different from you claiming cities
can't function in unified economy?

That claim only works if there's no unified national aspiration,
or cohesive social structure to be built upon.

Which is exactly why:
The Palestinian local elections held May 13 showed that Palestinians *voted for tribal and independent lists instead of political lists*, giving serious cause for concern.

and why:
Among the first moves by Arafat in '94 was to establish a *Tribal Department.*

Then from one side of the mouth you shout _"from the river to the sea!"_,
while from the other you say _"it cant work in unified economy"._

So...


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> nomatic
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the places that Rudy goes off the rails is that he defines Palestinian cities and villages as nomadic. That is a blatant contradiction in terms. Then he bases his conclusions on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the social structure,
> not the cities themselves.
> 
> How is that different from you claiming cities
> can't function in unified economy?
> 
> That claim only works if there's no unified national aspiration,
> or cohesive social structure to be built upon.
> 
> Which is exactly why:
> The Palestinian local elections held May 13 showed that Palestinians *voted for tribal and independent lists instead of political lists*, giving serious cause for concern.
> 
> and why:
> Among the first moves by Arafat in '94 was to establish a *Tribal Department.*
> 
> Then from one side of the mouth you shout _"from the river to the sea!"_,
> while from the other you say _"it cant work in unified economy"._
> 
> So...
Click to expand...

A unified economy is not in the plans.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> nomatic
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the places that Rudy goes off the rails is that he defines Palestinian cities and villages as nomadic. That is a blatant contradiction in terms. Then he bases his conclusions on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the social structure,
> not the cities themselves.
> 
> How is that different from you claiming cities
> can't function in unified economy?
> 
> That claim only works if there's no unified national aspiration,
> or cohesive social structure to be built upon.
> 
> Which is exactly why:
> The Palestinian local elections held May 13 showed that Palestinians *voted for tribal and independent lists instead of political lists*, giving serious cause for concern.
> 
> and why:
> Among the first moves by Arafat in '94 was to establish a *Tribal Department.*
> 
> Then from one side of the mouth you shout _"from the river to the sea!"_,
> while from the other you say _"it cant work in unified economy"._
> 
> So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A unified economy is not in the plans.
Click to expand...


Clearly, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
And what you've been pretentiously demanding for years,
but now won't even discuss that, nor what Kefah says in the video you've posted.

I suggest review the new rules:





						New "Clean Start" Policy on Creating Threads
					

We always HAVE been a Discussion board.  We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## flacaltenn

rylah said:


> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.



Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...


Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.






						Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
					

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
Click to expand...


Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
Click to expand...

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
Click to expand...


I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep asking:
> 
> why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
> or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?
> 
> What's in it for you?
Click to expand...

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep asking:
> 
> why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
> or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?
> 
> What's in it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are both Israeli shills.
> 
> Where do you see both sides?
Click to expand...


Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "_Israeli shill_"? 

How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Battle of World Jewry against Zionism - What Israel Don't Want You to Watch; -*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation
					

We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.




					electronicintifada.net
				






			https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation
> 
> 
> We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3


*(COMMENT)*

Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan."  Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name.  Can you tell me what the plan is called?

Thanking You in Advance,



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation
> 
> 
> We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan."  Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name.  Can you tell me what the plan is called?
> 
> Thanking You in Advance,
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Eva Bartlett on Gaza in Crisis - An Eyewitness Report*


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.



P F Tinmore said:


> There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.


*(COMMENT)*

You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.

I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.

But then that is just me...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Battle of World Jewry against Zionism - What Israel Don't Want You to Watch; -*



A bobmbastic headline
but a false impression.

World Jewry are overwhelmingly Zionist,
*including the Jews in America:*

80% of US Jews say they are pro-Israel, study finds

including the orthodox community, who are next generation's majority,
and shifting *Republican* for their conservative values:








						How deep is Trump support among US Orthodox Jews? New poll says it’s complicated
					

What may be the most robust survey of America's most religiously observant Jewish demographic reveals that even within subgroups, there are massive differences in political opinion




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




But I get why you would need to create that false impression
and bet you just posted it for the headline, rather than to discuss anything.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation
> 
> 
> We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan."  Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name.  Can you tell me what the plan is called?
> 
> Thanking You in Advance,
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.
Click to expand...


In other words:

Another LIE by Abunilie,
based on_ I say so_...


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep asking:
> 
> why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
> or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?
> 
> What's in it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are both Israeli shills.
> 
> Where do you see both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "_Israeli shill_"?
> 
> How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.
Click to expand...


*I keep asking but there's no response:*

P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's_ "case for Hamas",_
you already knew she was what you call _"an Israeli shill"_,
or you just came to that realization after she revealed
something that does't fit your preferred narrative?

*What's in it for you to cast off her voice?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep asking:
> 
> why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
> or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?
> 
> What's in it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are both Israeli shills.
> 
> Where do you see both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "_Israeli shill_"?
> 
> How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I keep asking but there's no response:*
> 
> P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's_ "case for Hamas",_
> you already knew she was what you call _"an Israeli shill"_,
> or you just came to that realization after she revealed
> something that does't fit your preferred narrative?
> 
> *What's in it for you to cast off her voice?*
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. In my haste I was thinking about a different person/video. You were talking about this person.


Now what was your question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.
> 
> I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.
> 
> But then that is just me...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.

Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.

The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out.  But if they do, this is what it will be.

If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn can You chip in?
> 
> In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
> Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.
> 
> Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
> but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.
> 
> P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
> based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.
> 
> 
> I think you have much to add on regional economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'll chip in..  I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.  Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??! the video opens with _"the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"..._
> Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?
> 
> I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
> you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.
> 
> Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
> you don't deserve to breath her air,
> you don't deserve to enjoy her views
> you don't deserve do smell her scents,
> you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.
> 
> Because clearly,
> you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep asking:
> 
> why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
> or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?
> 
> What's in it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are both Israeli shills.
> 
> Where do you see both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "_Israeli shill_"?
> 
> How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I keep asking but there's no response:*
> 
> P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's_ "case for Hamas",_
> you already knew she was what you call _"an Israeli shill"_,
> or you just came to that realization after she revealed
> something that does't fit your preferred narrative?
> 
> *What's in it for you to cast off her voice?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. In my haste I was thinking about a different person/video. You were talking about this person.
> 
> 
> Now what was your question?
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll repeat the question:

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

*What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?

And was your sudden shift away from "river to sea" paradigm,
towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.
> 
> I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.
> 
> But then that is just me...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.
> 
> Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.
> 
> The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out.  But if they do, this is what it will be.
> 
> If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Sad, but you keep sounding like a broken record.
Nothing that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam for decades.

But it's not the parrots in their echo chambers who change things,
it's those who have the guts to think for themselves.

*Arab-American Researchers: Arab Narratives on Zionism Are False; Israel Most Successful in the ME*

Syrian-American human rights activist Ammar Abdulhamid and Egyptian-American researcher Samuel Tadros discussed Zionism and Israel on an August 15, 2019 show on Al-Hurra TV.

**


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: You and I simply don't speak the same language.



P F Tinmore said:


> First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration _(suitable conditions)_ and encourage that immigration.
 


			
				Dictionary of International Law  said:
			
		

> Starke ’ s International Law (11th ed.), 429–430: ‘Quaere, whether, as claimed by some states, the word “force” used in the United Nations Charter is capable of denoting economic or political pressure, which was alleged to be characteristic of “neo-colonialism”.  By way of answer to this claim, it has been objected that it would open a wide door for the
> invalidation of treaties concluded at arms length’.
> SOURCE: Page 104Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.
> SOURCE:  Page 107 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law
> 
> Independence → Inasmuch as it excludes subjection to any other authority, and in particular the authority of another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with regard to the liberty of action outside its borders. It is internal independence with regard to the liberty of action within its boundaries’
> SOURCE: Page 276 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law



At NO point _(I repeat → at no point)_ did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November  1917.

No matter what News Paper Articles you may dredge-up that uses the words or phrases → "colonize" or "colonial project"  → Jewish settlements were _(and still are)_ being created to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.



P F Tinmore said:


> Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.
> 
> The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out.  But if they do, this is what it will be.
> 
> If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.


*(COMMENT)*

This is, once again, a totally unsubstantiated claim _(plan must be made)_ with some intent to deprive the Arab Palestinians of some "right" or "privilege" that would counter the original General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) recommendation that was adopted.

Nearly all capitalist societies look for the best possible business arrangement concerning "taxation" and "cheap labor."  But to suggest that the Israelis have some plan to hold Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor _(implied slave labor) _is totally off the rails. _(Totally preposterous! and ludicrous...)_

While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity.  Most businesses operate in a utilitarian fashion.  But to express the idea that the Israelis would even consider holding the Arab Palestinians as a "captive source for cheap labor" no matter the form of captivity used to accommodate the exploitation _(physical, economic, commercial, or militarily)_.
 



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You and I simply don't speak the same language.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration _(suitable conditions)_ and encourage that immigration.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary of International Law  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starke ’ s International Law (11th ed.), 429–430: ‘Quaere, whether, as claimed by some states, the word “force” used in the United Nations Charter is capable of denoting economic or political pressure, which was alleged to be characteristic of “neo-colonialism”.  By way of answer to this claim, it has been objected that it would open a wide door for the​
> invalidation of treaties concluded at arms length’.​
> SOURCE: Page 104Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​
> ​
> General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.​
> SOURCE:  Page 107 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law ​
> ​
> Independence → Inasmuch as it excludes subjection to any other authority, and in particular the authority of another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with regard to the liberty of action outside its borders. It is internal independence with regard to the liberty of action within its boundaries’​
> SOURCE: Page 276 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> At NO point _(I repeat → at no point)_ did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November  1917.
> 
> No matter what News Paper Articles you may dredge-up that uses the words or phrases → "colonize" or "colonial project"  → Jewish settlements were _(and still are)_ being created to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.
> 
> The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out.  But if they do, this is what it will be.
> 
> If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is, once again, a totally unsubstantiated claim _(plan must be made)_ with some intent to deprive the Arab Palestinians of some "right" or "privilege" that would counter the original General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) recommendation that was adopted.
> 
> Nearly all capitalist societies look for the best possible business arrangement concerning "taxation" and "cheap labor."  But to suggest that the Israelis have some plan to hold Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor _(implied slave labor) _is totally off the rails. _(Totally preposterous! and ludicrous...)_
> 
> While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity.  Most businesses operate in a utilitarian fashion.  But to express the idea that the Israelis would even consider holding the Arab Palestinians as a "captive source for cheap labor" no matter the form of captivity used to accommodate the exploitation _(physical, economic, commercial, or militarily)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration _(suitable conditions)_ and encourage that immigration.





RoccoR said:


> At NO point _(I repeat → at no point)_ did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917.


The roots of the settler colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity.


Israel has been doing that for decades.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You and I simply don't speak the same language.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration _(suitable conditions)_ and encourage that immigration.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary of International Law  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starke ’ s International Law (11th ed.), 429–430: ‘Quaere, whether, as claimed by some states, the word “force” used in the United Nations Charter is capable of denoting economic or political pressure, which was alleged to be characteristic of “neo-colonialism”.  By way of answer to this claim, it has been objected that it would open a wide door for the​
> invalidation of treaties concluded at arms length’.​
> SOURCE: Page 104Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​
> ​
> General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.​
> SOURCE:  Page 107 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law ​
> ​
> Independence → Inasmuch as it excludes subjection to any other authority, and in particular the authority of another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with regard to the liberty of action outside its borders. It is internal independence with regard to the liberty of action within its boundaries’​
> SOURCE: Page 276 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> At NO point _(I repeat → at no point)_ did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November  1917.
> 
> No matter what News Paper Articles you may dredge-up that uses the words or phrases → "colonize" or "colonial project"  → Jewish settlements were _(and still are)_ being created to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.
> 
> The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out.  But if they do, this is what it will be.
> 
> If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is, once again, a totally unsubstantiated claim _(plan must be made)_ with some intent to deprive the Arab Palestinians of some "right" or "privilege" that would counter the original General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) recommendation that was adopted.
> 
> Nearly all capitalist societies look for the best possible business arrangement concerning "taxation" and "cheap labor."  But to suggest that the Israelis have some plan to hold Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor _(implied slave labor) _is totally off the rails. _(Totally preposterous! and ludicrous...)_
> 
> While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity.  Most businesses operate in a utilitarian fashion.  But to express the idea that the Israelis would even consider holding the Arab Palestinians as a "captive source for cheap labor" no matter the form of captivity used to accommodate the exploitation _(physical, economic, commercial, or militarily)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration _(suitable conditions)_ and encourage that immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> At NO point _(I repeat → at no point)_ did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The roots of the settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Yet international law specifically defines
Israel a *re-constitution* of an indigenous civilization.

Might not fit your narrative, but that's what it legally says.

And if you define Balfour Declaration as the 'root',
then you simply don't know minimal basic history of the place.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,


I think you should listen to that again. I think she was quite clear. Some Islamic organizations say Hamas is Haram because they are too nationalist and democratic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.


I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?


I don't see where they agree.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> And was your sudden shift away from _"river to sea" _paradigm,
> towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?


Huh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
Click to expand...






__





						Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
					

flacaltenn can You chip in?  In post  #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam, in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.  Kefah argues from a religious perspective, Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.  Kefah...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should listen to that again. I think she was quite clear. Some Islamic organizations say Hamas is Haram because they are too nationalist and democratic.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where they agree.
Click to expand...

Well I did listen again - in 5:31 Kefah Abukhdeir reveals* "Nationalism is Haram in Islam".*
Rudy has been saying virtually the same all along from various perspectives.

And clearly, 
you start twisting around switching positions the moment you realized they agree.


So for the 5th time:

*Why are you threatened by Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
What do you get by insisting on polarization?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
Click to expand...


But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And was your sudden shift away from _"river to sea" _paradigm,
> towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Indeed, let me help your confusion -

decide:

is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And was your sudden shift away from _"river to sea" _paradigm,
> towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, let me help your confusion -
> 
> decide:
> 
> is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
> or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?
Click to expand...

I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is your default response,
> your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?


Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And was your sudden shift away from _"river to sea" _paradigm,
> towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, let me help your confusion -
> 
> decide:
> 
> is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
> or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.
Click to expand...


*Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*

When an Israeli argues for a one state, unified economy,
you go for demanding city state economy.

When and Israeli argues for city Emirates,
you go - one state.

I think you just can't handle agreeing with a Zionist,
thus all the mental twisting.

*Can you decide already?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is your default response,
> your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.
Click to expand...


I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.

They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
since then you play dumb and call them names,
but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.

The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.

But the question remains -* why are you so threatened by their agreement?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is your default response,
> your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
> in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.
> 
> They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
> since then you play dumb and call them names,
> but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.
> 
> The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.
> 
> But the question remains -* why are you so threatened by their agreement?*
Click to expand...

Which one state do they agree on?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is your default response,
> your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
> in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.
> 
> They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
> since then you play dumb and call them names,
> but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.
> 
> The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.
> 
> But the question remains -* why are you so threatened by their agreement?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which one state do they agree on?
Click to expand...


*They agree on one-state paradigm.*

Kefah also explained the incompatibility at the basis of Arab claims.
by revealing that national sovereignty is Haram in Islam.

I don't know if she just let her guard off,
or simply unusually sincere for position,
but you clearly can't disprove that.

So I ask again, for who knows what time:
*Why are you so threatened by their agreement?*


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And was your sudden shift away from _"river to sea" _paradigm,
> towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, let me help your confusion -
> 
> decide:
> 
> is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
> or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> When an Israeli argues for a one state, unified economy,
> you go for demanding city state economy.
> 
> When and Israeli argues for city Emirates,
> you go - one state.
> 
> I think you just can't handle agreeing with a Zionist,
> thus all the mental twisting.
> 
> *Can you decide already?*
Click to expand...


Where is my answer OP??
Unified economy, or city states?

One thing is to make big ass claims and run away,
another to actually make a sound argument.

Make your argument.

Or just admit that you have no consistent standard,
beyond default disagreement, regardless of what's said.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*


I don't know what he means by that.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *While a City-State and a Bantustan are different, I get your meaning.  But there are actual only three City-Staes in the world that are autonomous entities → not administered as a part of another nation.  (Singapore, Monaco, Vatican City)



P F Tinmore said:


> I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.


*(COMMENT)*

Not to say it can not happen, but less than Jerusalem _(a separate case entirely)_ the remainder of the territory under the administration of Israel _(since 1988 when Jordan totally abandon all its holdings on the West Side of the Jordan River)_ is not capable of standing alone.  The Gaza Strip (HAMAS) has really become a separate entity.  It is not really known whether or not it could stand alone.  It certainly has the capacity less its self-destructive leadership

*(REFERENCING)*  Truncated Video:  A Palestinian Makes a Case for HAMAS...

This is an interesting discussion on the Topic.  Well worth the time it talks to review.

It starts from the position that by erecting an infrastructure - of self-governing institutions - that would prevent (not allow) a HAMAS takeover → the West Bank could become its own sovereignty.  →  That triggers the question:  What is wrong with HAMAS?

One of the ideas that floated was that the people of Gaza see more practical benefits passed done to the people that the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank see trickling down from the Ramallah Government.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what he means by that.
Click to expand...


Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:



P F Tinmore said:


> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.



And ever since you've been dancing around,
can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.

*Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what he means by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
> When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ever since you've been dancing around,
> can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.
> 
> *Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?*
Click to expand...

You are the one dancing around my posts.

What does he mean by unified economy?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: A Unified Economy varies slightly at the global level because the production of goods and service between trading partners vary. But the objective is essentially the same to sustain → to significant increases in standards of living and profoundly altered the level and distribution of wealth, population, education, and health programs across a larger regional area that has merged politically.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?


*(COMMENT)*

Although regional nations have hundreds of years experience the necessity for such economic unification one of the more recent examples of a completely successful unifications was the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)(Bonn Government) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)(East Berlin Government).  Today, the FRG is one of the strongest economies in the world.





​In the broad brush strokes_ (an understanding at the undergraduate level)_ such a unification and convergence across the Israeli-Palestinian Landscape must include banking, financial services, regulatory commissions, emergency services, utilities and across cross the entire merged territory.  This means planning together, funding together and delivering services together on an all-Israeli basis.  You cannot just snap your fingers and link the regions together without laying down common structures and instituting inflation safeguards _(or at least suppression)_.

No-one is "one dancing around" question.  It is more the case that no-one wants to be seen _(or accused)_ as if you are less intelligent or capable of participating in the discussion. 




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what he means by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
> When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ever since you've been dancing around,
> can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.
> 
> *Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
Click to expand...


A unified economy means that Ramallah and Tel-Aviv for example,
become integrated into a single state, from the river to the sea,
no federation or city states, one country, one sovereignty.

In principle (later we can argue details)
*for or against?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



So what's the argument here,
that they'd be better under Hamas rule,
than become citizens under Israeli sovereignty?

Let's see you make a case for that...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: A Unified Economy varies slightly at the global level because the production of goods and service between trading partners vary. But the objective is essentially the same to sustain → to significant increases in standards of living and profoundly altered the level and distribution of wealth, population, education, and health programs across a larger regional area that has merged politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although regional nations have hundreds of years experience the necessity for such economic unification one of the more recent examples of a completely successful unifications was the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)(Bonn Government) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)(East Berlin Government).  Today, the FRG is one of the strongest economies in the world.
> 
> 
> View attachment 373375​In the broad brush strokes_ (an understanding at the undergraduate level)_ such a unification and convergence across the Israeli-Palestinian Landscape must include banking, financial services, regulatory commissions, emergency services, utilities and across cross the entire merged territory.  This means planning together, funding together and delivering services together on an all-Israeli basis.  You cannot just snap your fingers and link the regions together without laying down common structures and instituting inflation safeguards _(or at least suppression)_.
> 
> No-one is "one dancing around" question.  It is more the case that no-one wants to be seen _(or accused)_ as if you are less intelligent or capable of participating in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but how would that work in Palestine. Palestine is different than the rest of the world


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what he means by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
> When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ever since you've been dancing around,
> can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.
> 
> *Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A unified economy means that Ramallah and Tel-Aviv for example,
> become integrated into a single state, from the river to the sea,
> no federation or city states, one country, one sovereignty.
> 
> In principle (later we can argue details)
> *for or against?*
Click to expand...

My concern is that the Palestinian market would be captive and dependent.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: A Unified Economy varies slightly at the global level because the production of goods and service between trading partners vary. But the objective is essentially the same to sustain → to significant increases in standards of living and profoundly altered the level and distribution of wealth, population, education, and health programs across a larger regional area that has merged politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although regional nations have hundreds of years experience the necessity for such economic unification one of the more recent examples of a completely successful unifications was the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)(Bonn Government) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)(East Berlin Government).  Today, the FRG is one of the strongest economies in the world.
> 
> 
> View attachment 373375​In the broad brush strokes_ (an understanding at the undergraduate level)_ such a unification and convergence across the Israeli-Palestinian Landscape must include banking, financial services, regulatory commissions, emergency services, utilities and across cross the entire merged territory.  This means planning together, funding together and delivering services together on an all-Israeli basis.  You cannot just snap your fingers and link the regions together without laying down common structures and instituting inflation safeguards _(or at least suppression)_.
> 
> No-one is "one dancing around" question.  It is more the case that no-one wants to be seen _(or accused)_ as if you are less intelligent or capable of participating in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but how would that work in Palestine. Palestine is different than the rest of the world
Click to expand...


Uh huh.

This is just so silly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: A Unified Economy varies slightly at the global level because the production of goods and service between trading partners vary. But the objective is essentially the same to sustain → to significant increases in standards of living and profoundly altered the level and distribution of wealth, population, education, and health programs across a larger regional area that has merged politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although regional nations have hundreds of years experience the necessity for such economic unification one of the more recent examples of a completely successful unifications was the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)(Bonn Government) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)(East Berlin Government).  Today, the FRG is one of the strongest economies in the world.
> 
> 
> View attachment 373375​In the broad brush strokes_ (an understanding at the undergraduate level)_ such a unification and convergence across the Israeli-Palestinian Landscape must include banking, financial services, regulatory commissions, emergency services, utilities and across cross the entire merged territory.  This means planning together, funding together and delivering services together on an all-Israeli basis.  You cannot just snap your fingers and link the regions together without laying down common structures and instituting inflation safeguards _(or at least suppression)_.
> 
> No-one is "one dancing around" question.  It is more the case that no-one wants to be seen _(or accused)_ as if you are less intelligent or capable of participating in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but how would that work in Palestine. Palestine is different than the rest of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> This is just so silly.
Click to expand...

So far, nobody has given any specifics on how this woulf work


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: A Unified Economy varies slightly at the global level because the production of goods and service between trading partners vary. But the objective is essentially the same to sustain → to significant increases in standards of living and profoundly altered the level and distribution of wealth, population, education, and health programs across a larger regional area that has merged politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although regional nations have hundreds of years experience the necessity for such economic unification one of the more recent examples of a completely successful unifications was the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)(Bonn Government) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)(East Berlin Government).  Today, the FRG is one of the strongest economies in the world.
> 
> 
> View attachment 373375​In the broad brush strokes_ (an understanding at the undergraduate level)_ such a unification and convergence across the Israeli-Palestinian Landscape must include banking, financial services, regulatory commissions, emergency services, utilities and across cross the entire merged territory.  This means planning together, funding together and delivering services together on an all-Israeli basis.  You cannot just snap your fingers and link the regions together without laying down common structures and instituting inflation safeguards _(or at least suppression)_.
> 
> No-one is "one dancing around" question.  It is more the case that no-one wants to be seen _(or accused)_ as if you are less intelligent or capable of participating in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but how would that work in Palestine. Palestine is different than the rest of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> This is just so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far, nobody has given any specifics on how this woulf work
Click to expand...

Not true.

The problem you can’t resolve is that the romanticized Islamic paradise you have invented never existed in the past and clearly won’t exist in the future.

It is one of the rude awakenings to the wannabe caliphate’ists that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: No one wants to corrupt the Israeli iterative planning methodology and planning process. Planning such as this is usually kept under wraps until the decision to proceed is issued. So, it is part of the process that you would be kept outside the loop.



P F Tinmore said:


> So far, nobody has given any specifics on how this woulf work





rylah said:


> A unified economy means that Ramallah and Tel-Aviv for example,
> become integrated into a single state, from the river to the sea,
> no federation or city states, one country, one sovereignty.
> In principle (later we can argue details)
> *for or against?*





P F Tinmore said:


> My concern is that the Palestinian market would be captive and dependent.


*(COMMENT)*

It is a big risk for the Israelis to take.  And they have so very much at stake.  While the FRG-GDR merger was suddenly thrust upon them, the former GDR citizen already knew and were risking their lives to escape the draconian GDR and become German citizens.  Every BRO (US Military Intelligence Resident Office) was reporting the escapes from the GDR across the minefields and into the US 11th ACR patrol area known as the 1k zone into the west on a fairly routine basis. 

This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding.  Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework.  It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.

"In 2018 Israel was the number 31 economy in the world in terms of GDP (current US$), the number 51 in total exports, the number 43 in total imports, and the number 19 most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI)."  That might not sound impressive.  But in terms of the immediate surrounding regional markets, there is NO OTHER country in the Middle East • North African (MENA) Region that has a better ECI Ranking.  Qatar comes the closet at Ranking 42.

See: 
	

Israel Link



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: No one wants to corrupt the Israeli iterative planning methodology and planning process. Planning such as this is usually kept under wraps until the decision to proceed is issued. So, it is part of the process that you would be kept outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, nobody has given any specifics on how this woulf work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> A unified economy means that Ramallah and Tel-Aviv for example,
> become integrated into a single state, from the river to the sea,
> no federation or city states, one country, one sovereignty.
> In principle (later we can argue details)
> *for or against?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern is that the Palestinian market would be captive and dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is a big risk for the Israelis to take.  And they have so very much at stake.  While the FRG-GDR merger was suddenly thrust upon them, the former GDR citizen already knew and were risking their lives to escape the draconian GDR and become German citizens.  Every BRO (US Military Intelligence Resident Office) was reporting the escapes from the GDR across the minefields and into the US 11th ACR patrol area known as the 1k zone into the west on a fairly routine basis.
> 
> This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding.  Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework.  It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.
> 
> "In 2018 Israel was the number 31 economy in the world in terms of GDP (current US$), the number 51 in total exports, the number 43 in total imports, and the number 19 most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI)."  That might not sound impressive.  But in terms of the immediate surrounding regional markets, there is NO OTHER country in the Middle East • North African (MENA) Region that has a better ECI Ranking.  Qatar comes the closet at Ranking 42.
> 
> See:
> 
> 
> Israel Link
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oh geese, more brand Israel talking points.

Not even a good deflection.


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: I think you are trying to spoof me. I want to see an Israeli Talking Paper that you compare me to.



P F Tinmore said:


> Oh geese, more brand Israel talking points.
> 
> Not even a good deflection.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think there is one point that I made that is comparable to any Israeli Taking Paper. 

And by what logic do you use to determine that my response was a deflection sine it directly answered the issue of:   "Palestinian market would be captive and dependent."  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I think you are trying to spoof me. I want to see an Israeli Talking Paper that you compare me to.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geese, more brand Israel talking points.
> 
> Not even a good deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think there is one point that I made that is comparable to any Israeli Taking Paper.
> 
> And by what logic do you use to determine that my response was a deflection sine it directly answered the issue of:   "Palestinian market would be captive and dependent."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding. Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework. It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.


All Palestinian imports and exports must go through Israel. Israel throttles Palestinian markets based on a whim.

An example is that Israeli companies shipped fabric to Gaza factories that would sew it into clothing. Then it would be shipped back to the Israeli companies for distribution. Israel got a hair up its ass and stopped that. The factories closed and the people were out of work.

Israel is a very unreliable business partner. The response I got for that concern was gibberish.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Life Sentences for Charity Work - Free the Holy Land 5!*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what he means by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
> When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ever since you've been dancing around,
> can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.
> 
> *Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one dancing around my posts.
> 
> What does he mean by unified economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A unified economy means that Ramallah and Tel-Aviv for example,
> become integrated into a single state, from the river to the sea,
> no federation or city states, one country, one sovereignty.
> 
> In principle (later we can argue details)
> *for or against?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My concern is that the Palestinian market would be captive and dependent.
Click to expand...


Why, did it EVER function independently?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I think you are trying to spoof me. I want to see an Israeli Talking Paper that you compare me to.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geese, more brand Israel talking points.
> 
> Not even a good deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think there is one point that I made that is comparable to any Israeli Taking Paper.
> 
> And by what logic do you use to determine that my response was a deflection sine it directly answered the issue of:   "Palestinian market would be captive and dependent."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding. Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework. It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Palestinian imports and exports must go through Israel. Israel throttles Palestinian markets based on a whim.
> 
> An example is that Israeli companies shipped fabric to Gaza factories that would sew it into clothing. Then it would be shipped back to the Israeli companies for distribution. Israel got a hair up its ass and stopped that. The factories closed and the people were out of work.
> 
> Israel is a very unreliable business partner. The response I got for that concern was gibberish.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure this is another Abunilie's electronic intifada fairy-tale.
They used to do furniture and mattresses that were sold Israeli franchise, but not cloths, and that was long ago.

However, anytime I suggested one unified economy,
you suspiciously evaded the question each time,
answering one you'd prefer to be asked,
preferring only to make accusations.

So do you really have concerns you'd like to solve,
or just look for excuses to disagree?


----------



## RoccoR

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

*BLUF*: I'm sorry for responding so late on this. I had to do a reasonable search.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding. Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework. It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.
> 
> 
> 
> All Palestinian imports and exports must go through Israel. Israel throttles Palestinian markets based on a whim.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I cannot find any reason why the Arab Palestinians cannot trade through one of the adjacent Arab League States.  Is there a particular political reason for that?

I noticed that Egypt re-opened Rafah border crossing. Is there some reason the Egyptians generally close their border operations? I noticed a similar pattern with the Jordanians. In early March, Jordan limited the travel across the Allenby Bridge to Arab Palestinians and diplomates.

Are the Arab Palestinians complaining to the Egyptians and Jordanians?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I'm sorry for responding so late on this. I had to do a reasonable search.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This idea of a captive market is another indication of a lack of understanding. Once any part of the region comes under Israeli control, it is integrated into the Israeli multi-national market framework. It no longer can be an isolated Arab Palestinian market.
> 
> 
> 
> All Palestinian imports and exports must go through Israel. Israel throttles Palestinian markets based on a whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot find any reason why the Arab Palestinians cannot trade through one of the adjacent Arab League States.  Is there a particular political reason for that?
> 
> I noticed that Egypt re-opened Rafah border crossing. Is there some reason the Egyptians generally close their border operations? I noticed a similar pattern with the Jordanians. In early March, Jordan limited the travel across the Allenby Bridge to Arab Palestinians and diplomates.
> 
> Are the Arab Palestinians complaining to the Egyptians and Jordanians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> I cannot find any reason why the Arab Palestinians cannot trade through one of the adjacent Arab League States. Is there a particular political reason for that?


Sure, Israel controls the borders.









						Israel bans Palestinian agricultural exports via Jordan -PA minister
					

Israel has escalated a trade war with the Palestinians by stopping their agricultural exports through Jordan, Palestinian Agriculture Minister Riyad al-Attari said on Saturday.




					www.reuters.com
				





RoccoR said:


> I noticed that Egypt re-opened Rafah border crossing. Is there some reason the Egyptians generally close their border operations?


Sure, $2B a year from the US. They do what we say.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Prof. Joseph Massad on 'Nation Law: Israeli Apartheid State' at Palestine Expo 2019

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Exploring Cultural Activism in Palestine/Israel: Countering Cultural Erasure Through Palestinian Art*


----------



## toastman

Tinmore is talking to himself again. Must be off his meds


----------



## P F Tinmore

*IsraPalooza Interview with Lucy Aharish*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine Music Expo and Cultural Activism | Ep. 9 - Rami Younis | MUSIC XP*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Webinar: Liberate Palestine - From the River to the Sea with Khaled Barakat*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews      
⁜→ P F Tinmore,


P F Tinmore said:


> *Prof. Joseph Massad on 'Nation Law: Israeli Apartheid State' at Palestine Expo 2019*


*(COMMENT)*

It is Internationally_ (as opposed to "Nationally")_ recognized that NO country has the right or authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.  This protects ALL nations, not just the Jewish National Home and Israel.  Israel was recognized first as the "Jewish State" in the UN Special Committee on Palestine Recommendation A/RES/181 (II), just the same as the proposed "Arab State" _(however rejected by the Arab Higher Committee)_.

The entire presentation is riddled with inuendos that can be challenged, all coming together to introduce true and exact sounding statements that are used for the support of inexact notions. I think that the entire presentation by Professor Massad is "bogus."




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews      
⁜→ P F Tinmore,


P F Tinmore said:


> *Prof. Joseph Massad on 'Nation Law: Israeli Apartheid State' at Palestine Expo 2019*


*(COMMENT)*

It is Internationally_ (as opposed to "Nationally")_ recognized that NO country has the right or authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.  This protects ALL nations, not just the Jewish National Home and Israel.  Israel was recognized first as the "Jewish State" in the UN Special Committee on Palestine Recommendation A/RES/181 (II), just the same as the proposed "Arab State" _(however rejected by the Arab Higher Committee)_.

The entire presentation is riddled with inuendos that can be challenged, all coming together to introduce true and exact sounding statements that are used for the support of inexact notions. I think that the entire presentation by Professor Massad is "bogus."




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is Internationally_ (as opposed to "Nationally")_ recognized that NO country has the right or authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.


That's what I have been saying for years.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Coyote

*If you are going to post videos...please post a few words on what they and why they are worth watching.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

A panel discussion on the supression of Palestinian free speech on campus.

*Federal Crackdown on Campus Palestine Activism*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews      
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

And having said that, there are a couple of questions you have to ask about this claim → "*Israeli Apartheid State*"

​


			
				Article 7 • Crimes Against Humanity • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court said:
			
		

> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;​*SOURCE*:  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court​​


​


P F Tinmore said:


> *Prof. Joseph Massad on 'Nation Law: Israeli Apartheid State' at Palestine Expo 2019*





RoccoR said:


> It is Internationally_ (as opposed to "Nationally")_ recognized that NO country has the right or authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.





P F Tinmore said:


> That's what I have been saying for years.


*(REFERENCES)*

*◈  boundary/ies* The imaginary lines on the surface of the earth which separate the land territory or maritime zones ( continental shelf and EEZ) of one State from that of another.  Ideally, as a matter of common sense but little more, a land boundary should be easy to identify and difficult to cross: British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1899 ) 188 C.T.S. 76 ;  Alaska Boundary Arbitration ( 1903 ) 15 R.I.A.A. 481. In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).  
*SOURCE*:  Page 69, Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​
*◈  racial discrimination* The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 ( 660 U.N.T.S. 195 ), based on the General Assembly Declaration of the same name of 20 November 1963 (Res. 1904 (XVIII)), obliges the States parties ‘to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms’: art. 2(1). For the purposes of the Convention, racial discrimination is ‘any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life’: art. 1(1). The Convention requires ‘equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of [listed] rights.’

*◈  sovereignty* ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a
State].

*(QUESTIONS)

◈  *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
*◈  *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
*◈  *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?

*(COMMENT)*

Generally speaking, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013, is the list used to outline "Israel’s violations of international law.*" * I consider the Tribunal just one step removed from a Kangaroo Court. It is a travesty for the RToP be given a voice at the UN level; and for the General Assembly to extend recognition and credibility to the RToP.

The RToP claims that •  Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Cape Town findings of this Tribunal), which have denied Palestinians a functioning nationality both within Israel proper as well as the Occupied Territory and beyond.

Among other things, the RToP harangues the United States for complicity in Israel’s violations of international law.

Just My Thoughts



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Generally speaking, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013, is the list used to outline "Israel’s violations of international law.*" * I consider the Tribunal just one step removed from a Kangaroo Court. It is a travesty for the RToP be given a voice at the UN level; and for the General Assembly to extend recognition and credibility to the RToP.
> 
> The RToP claims that • Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Cape Town findings of this Tribunal), which have denied Palestinians a functioning nationality both within Israel proper as well as the Occupied Territory and beyond.


What part of this is incorrect?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?


Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).


How did Israel acquire title to territory?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
Click to expand...


Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are. 

You live in some alternate reality?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013, is the list used to outline "Israel’s violations of international law.*" * I consider the Tribunal just one step removed from a Kangaroo Court. It is a travesty for the RToP be given a voice at the UN level; and for the General Assembly to extend recognition and credibility to the RToP.
> 
> The RToP claims that • Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Cape Town findings of this Tribunal), which have denied Palestinians a functioning nationality both within Israel proper as well as the Occupied Territory and beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this is incorrect?
Click to expand...

The part that gave any credence to a charade.


----------



## Hollie

They find the worst examples of humanity to prop up as heroes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
Click to expand...

A line of goons with guns does not make a border.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
Click to expand...

Treaties between nations do.

Soldiers with weapons are sometimes needed to defend borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treaties between nations do.
> 
> Soldiers with weapons are sometimes needed to defend borders.
Click to expand...

What treaty does Israel have that changes Palestine's borders?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

*BLUF:* Now you are just being characteristically obstinate.



P F Tinmore said:


> What treaty does Israel have that changes Palestine's borders?


*(COMMENT)*

You know as well as I know that the "Palestine" of today, is not the 1922 Palestine that was designated by the Palestine Order in Council. 

You know, as well as I do, if you bothered to read and understand (without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians) that the Borders have been agreed upon by the Treaties Israel has with Jordan and Egypt.






​
You know as well as I do, that no matter how the Rule of Law has applied 100 years ago (at the San Remo Convention), or when the National Council for the Jewish State, applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for independence under the Rule of Self-Determination (more than 70 years ago) that it was legitimately accepted.  And that almost one year to the (11 May 1949) the UN decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

In 1948, you have seen what I have seen.  "Palestine was a "Legal Entity" but NOT a self-governing State.

This is nonsense that you don't accept the documented facts.

As a matter of historical fact, the Territory to which the Mandate applied has the name Palestine.  The Treaties don't change that at all.  What it does add to the historical record is the State of Israel and its internationally recognized boundaries.boundaries.

It does the Arab Palestinian no service to constantly refuse to accept the evolutionary changes over time.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
Click to expand...















						Boundaries
					

Definition of Boundaries in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary




					legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
Click to expand...

By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.

Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
Click to expand...


P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
but can you actually refute a thing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
Click to expand...

Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
Click to expand...


Ok, but this only confirms my post.

From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
Click to expand...

The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
Click to expand...


No where in the mandate does it suggest that.

Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
> 
> Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
> yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
Click to expand...

*ART. 7.​​*​
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu
				



Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
> 
> Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
> yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*​
> ​
> ​
> ​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.
Click to expand...

What about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pally'land"?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
> 
> Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
> yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*​
> ​
> ​
> ​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.
Click to expand...


Israel and Jews are synonyms.
The territorial unit 'Palestine' specifically assigned for the Jewish nation.

Was the term 'nation' used in those documents in reference to anyone else?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
Click to expand...

As you know, there is a thread for your circular arguments about the invention of some mythical ''country of Pally'land''

*The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*

This is the thread for your youtube video collection.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
> 
> Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
> yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*​
> ​
> ​
> ​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel and Jews are synonyms.
> The territorial unit 'Palestine' specifically assigned for the Jewish nation.
> 
> Was the term 'nation' used in those documents in reference to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Palestine was already a defined territory. The Palestinians already had nationality and citizenship. That should not have to be reiterated. It was the Jews who had to be fit in there somehow.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

*BLUF:*  Again, this is wrong.  As has been pointed out so many times before:

The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT even mention "Palestine" anywhere in the text.  The Treaty specifically states^ that:

_*Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title*__ whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories* and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*_​
The Treaty of Lausanne is 'Binding" on the parties^^ to the Treaty.  Neither Israel _(a full member in the UN since 1949)_ or the current State of Palestine _(a Non-Member Observer Member in the UN since 2012)_ denied full membership last actioned in 2015, were binding parties to the Treaty^^^ when the Treaty went into force.

It should be noted at this point, realtive to the "Tinmore Claim" → that Palestine was already a defined territory, that the Allied Powers has previously agreed^^^^ that: 

_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of *the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire,* within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and_​_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the *Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917*, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and _​

*BLUF NOTES*
      ^:  Territorial Section, Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923)
    ^^:  Article 2(1g) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
  ^^^:  Article 1(2a) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
^^^^:  The San Remo Convention (1920) of the Allied Powers


P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was already a defined territory. The Palestinians already had nationality and citizenship. That should not have to be reiterated. It was the Jews who had to be fit in there somehow.


*(COMMENT)*

There has been a very unenlightened strategy for the pro_Arab Palestinians to Kling to the opening of the Nationality Section, Article 30 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923).  This Article stipulates that:

_Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey* will become* ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*_​
This is based on the decisions as to the final disposition of the territory.  The Treaty did not make the final disposition of Palestine.  That was a decision, at that time, yet to be made by the Allied Powers.  And again, it should be noted, as a comment made in previous contributions, that:

_*Later in 1923, a third attempt was made* to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. * The Arab leaders declined that this offer *on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. _​
No matter what the reasoning, the fact remains that the Arab Higher Committee did REJECT multiple offers - the very same offers made to the Jewish Agency which they ACCEPTED, that ultimately lead to the creations of the Jewish State.  And *IF* there is fault to be found or disappointment in the outcome of the historical path on the way to self-determination and the institution of self-government, *THEN* that fault rests at the feet of the Arab Palestinians.

All this whining by the Arab Palestinians about how they were so mistreated, is uncalled-for.  They were treated the same and had the portal the accomplish what the Jewish Agency actually did accomplish, BUT made an informed choice not to enter.  They should shut-up and change their direction if they want to recover any opportunity for a self-governing institution that can sustain itself.

And they need to disavow the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and the National Palestinian Authority (mostly Fatah) which are based upon political success through conflict:

◈  There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​◈  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.​
By embracing HAMAS or Fatah, gives them both unearned recognition and credibility; saying to the world - terrorism is a winning strategy _(Article 9, __Palestinian National Charter__, PMW)_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT even mention "Palestine" anywhere in the text.


What a stupid thing to say. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. You say this just to mislead. As if Palestine was not mentioned that it was excluded. It is just one of those Israeli talking points that you like so much.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It should be noted at this point, realtive to the "Tinmore Claim" → that Palestine was already a defined territory,


It was. An agreement between the Ottomans and Egypt formed that international border in 2006. The borders with Lebanon/Syria and Palestine was established by _Sykes_–_Picot _in 1916.  Article 25 in the Palestine Mandate established the border between Transjordan and Palestine in 1922.

The Treaty of Lausanne transferred title to Palestine in 1924. That is when the inhabitants became Palestinians and the citizens of Palestine by international law and followed by domestic law in 1925.

Citizenship is the link between a people and their state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There has been a very unenlightened strategy for the pro_Arab Palestinians to Kling to the opening of the Nationality Section, Article 30 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923). This Article stipulates that:
> 
> _Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey* will become* ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*​_



Read that a few times and let it sink in.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * Well, think what you will. But there is a question as to who showed a lack of intelligence or common sense.




RoccoR said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT even mention "Palestine" anywhere in the text.





P F Tinmore said:


> What a stupid thing to say. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. You say this just to mislead. As if Palestine was not mentioned that it was excluded. It is just one of those Israeli talking points that you like so much.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, you are not exactly correct.  In Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.  With regard to Lebanon and Transjordan, both were considered undefined territories of Syria.

(I ) With Syria:​The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.​​(2) With Iraq:​The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangements to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.​
Now, another point I would like you to remember because you keep making a big deal about Palestine having Borders:

​


			
				US DOS The Geographer Office of the Geographer Bureau of Intelligence and Research said:
			
		

> After the end of  World  War  I,  Great  Britain received a  League of  Nations mandate for  Palestine encompassing Jordan.  The British soon divided the mandate for administrative purposes along the Jordan River - Wadi 'Araba line.  However, *the precise southern limits of  Palestine and  Trans-Jordan were indefinite*.  At the time, Britain claimed access to the Gulf of  Aqaba,  while the  Arabians considered  Ma'an,  about  50  miles to the north,  to be within their domain based on its inclusion in the Ottoman vilayet of the Hejaz.​SOURCE: Page 2 • INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY STUDY  • No. 60 • JORDAN - SAUDI ARABIA BOUNDARY (1965)​​


​
As for your comments on Posting 222 and 223, I think that you are not rendering answers that make a difference.  The current Boundary between Jordan and Israel set by the 1994 Treaty._ (I think I gave Maps in __Posting #207__, and links to the Treaties several times.)_ I read pretty well.  I think I comprehend the difference between the 1924 Treaty on Nationality versus Territory.  And, even that has been overtaken by event.  All this twisted nonsense you are blabbering about is covered today within the Conventions and Protocols relating to:

◈.  The Status of Refugees​​◈.  The Status of Stateless Persons​
All I can say at this point is to fact-check your material before you present it.  Everyone makes mistakes now and then.  But few intelligent people make such blunders and then call someone stupid on that basis. 




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I think I comprehend the difference between the 1924 Treaty on Nationality versus Territory. And, even that has been overtaken by event.


 Please expound.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Well, you are not exactly correct. In Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.


Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they border Turkey and those borders had to be defined.

Nice try though.


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
Click to expand...


A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either.. 

Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"... 

I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are not exactly correct. In Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they border Turkey and those borders had to be defined.
> 
> Nice try though.
Click to expand...

So you still insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your magical kingdom of Pal’istan?

Seems rather odd in the sense that Pal’istan is not named in the Treaty.

Maybe you’re confused?


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
Click to expand...

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * There is even a deeper flaw (in my layman's opinion) to P F Tinmore's notions.



RoccoR said:


> Well, you are not exactly correct. In Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.





P F Tinmore said:


> Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they border Turkey and those borders had to be defined.
> 
> Nice try though.





Hollie said:


> So you still insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your magical kingdom of Pal’istan?
> 
> Seems rather odd in the sense that Pal’istan is not named in the Treaty.
> 
> Maybe you’re confused?


*(COMMENT)*

Over time, there have probably been a million treaties that have been written between various nations.  The circumstances that induced any given treaty, as well as, the enforceability of any of those treaties do not last forever.  That, coupled with the fact that the habitual inhabitance of the territory and the Jewish immigrants were not bound parties to the treaty.

Then add the fact that the creation of the post-WWII recommendations and by the new trustee authorities and the withdraw of the UK from the position of Mandatory create a new set of circumstances.  

◈  The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Recommendation by the UN Special Committee on Palestine [A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947] and the acceptance by the Israelis add a component, ​​◈  The formal adoption of the Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949],​​◈  The tacit approval through acts which implies the positive adopted resolutions were accepted, gave the implied authority by the General Assembly, representing the original authority passed down from the Allied Powers, for the accepted creation of Israel.​
The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium, no matter what the interpretation they may hold, will find it difficult to say today that there was an existence of a Palestine that was a greater legal entity than that of the Government of Palestine (GoP).  There was no soveriegn authority granted to the habitual inhabitance of the territory given by the Treaty.




RoccoR said:


> I think I comprehend the difference between the 1924 Treaty on Nationality versus Territory. And, even that has been overtaken by event.





P F Tinmore said:


> Please expound.


*(COMMENT)*

There are several Sections to the Treaty of Lausanne which address different aspect the Treaty covers.  Section I covers Territorial Issues.  Section II covers Nationality issues.  Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 16 grants title to the Allied Powers.  Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 30 protects the habitual inhabitence from becomeing stateless.  It is just that simple.  And in the thumbnail perspective (less all the fine detail) - when the Civil Administration created the entity known as the Government of Palestine (GoP), the GoP became a placeholder for the establishment of a self-governing institution(s) by Article 16, and through Article 30, the habitual inhabitance became citizens of the GoP.

The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium can put that all in a blender and twist it all up, but at the end of the day, no matter how they poor it, it will come out in favor of the Israelis. 

◈  No court in the world is going to say, on the basis of the Treaty of Lausanne, the State of Israel _(the 22d Ranked Country on the Human Development Index)_ must be disrupted and placed in the hands of the State of Palestine _(the 119th Ranked Country on the Human Development Index)_.​​◈  No Court in the world is going to say that a State has no right or duty to protect its territory and its citizens from a pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium - and then call that protection "Apartheid."​​◈  And no chamber of law is going to say that the population of any entity that reverse people like Dalal al-Maghribi is not a terrorist supporting nation and turn around and declare it "name calling."  And no chamber of law is going to declare arson, suicide bombing, kidnap and murder, hijackings, and incitement to violence - targeting civilians is going to say this is legitimate agression.​
There is no nation in the world that has not made mistakes.  The more active in world affairs the greater the probability of mistakes.  But this does not apply to the pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium which conducts "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.  No valid legal mechanism in the world is going to say that Protected Persons _(Hostile Arab Palestinians) _who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, which make attempts on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, that constitute a grave collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by occupying forces, is in any way legitimate _(certainly not any of the top ten most powerful nations of the world)_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * There is even a deeper flaw (in my layman's opinion) to P F Tinmore's notions.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are not exactly correct. In Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they border Turkey and those borders had to be defined.
> 
> Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your magical kingdom of Pal’istan?
> 
> Seems rather odd in the sense that Pal’istan is not named in the Treaty.
> 
> Maybe you’re confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Over time, there have probably been a million treaties that have been written between various nations.  The circumstances that induced any given treaty, as well as, the enforceability of any of those treaties do not last forever.  That, coupled with the fact that the habitual inhabitance of the territory and the Jewish immigrants were not bound parties to the treaty.
> 
> Then add the fact that the creation of the post-WWII recommendations and by the new trustee authorities and the withdraw of the UK from the position of Mandatory create a new set of circumstances.
> 
> ◈  The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Recommendation by the UN Special Committee on Palestine [A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947] and the acceptance by the Israelis add a component, ​​◈  The formal adoption of the Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949],​​◈  The tacit approval through acts which implies the positive adopted resolutions were accepted, gave the implied authority by the General Assembly, representing the original authority passed down from the Allied Powers, for the accepted creation of Israel.​
> The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium, no matter what the interpretation they may hold, will find it difficult to say today that there was an existence of a Palestine that was a greater legal entity than that of the Government of Palestine (GoP).  There was no soveriegn authority granted to the habitual inhabitance of the territory given by the Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I comprehend the difference between the 1924 Treaty on Nationality versus Territory. And, even that has been overtaken by event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please expound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several Sections to the Treaty of Lausanne which address different aspect the Treaty covers.  Section I covers Territorial Issues.  Section II covers Nationality issues.  Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 16 grants title to the Allied Powers.  Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 30 protects the habitual inhabitence from becomeing stateless.  It is just that simple.  And in the thumbnail perspective (less all the fine detail) - when the Civil Administration created the entity known as the Government of Palestine (GoP), the GoP became a placeholder for the establishment of a self-governing institution(s) by Article 16, and through Article 30, the habitual inhabitance became citizens of the GoP.
> 
> The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium can put that all in a blender and twist it all up, but at the end of the day, no matter how they poor it, it will come out in favor of the Israelis.
> 
> ◈  No court in the world is going to say, on the basis of the Treaty of Lausanne, the State of Israel _(the 22d Ranked Country on the Human Development Index)_ must be disrupted and placed in the hands of the State of Palestine _(the 119th Ranked Country on the Human Development Index)_.​​◈  No Court in the world is going to say that a State has no right or duty to protect its territory and its citizens from a pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium - and then call that protection "Apartheid."​​◈  And no chamber of law is going to say that the population of any entity that reverse people like Dalal al-Maghribi is not a terrorist supporting nation and turn around and declare it "name calling."  And no chamber of law is going to declare arson, suicide bombing, kidnap and murder, hijackings, and incitement to violence - targeting civilians is going to say this is legitimate agression.​
> There is no nation in the world that has not made mistakes.  The more active in world affairs the greater the probability of mistakes.  But this does not apply to the pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium which conducts "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.  No valid legal mechanism in the world is going to say that Protected Persons _(Hostile Arab Palestinians) _who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, which make attempts on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, that constitute a grave collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by occupying forces, is in any way legitimate _(certainly not any of the top ten most powerful nations of the world)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I am trying to find some relevance to all that.

Perhaps you could pull something out for us to discuss.


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
Click to expand...


Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with.. 

You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...


----------



## flacaltenn

From a policy paper I wrote last year..  




Support for the two-state solution is at its lowest level since Oslo, with only 43 percent of Palestinians saying they would accept it. More than half of the public views the PA as a burden on the Palestinian people, and a large majority, ranging from 60 to 70 percent in 2018, demands the resignation of the PA president, Mahmoud Abbas. Public support for Hamas, the largest Islamist faction in Palestine, stands at about one-third, compared to about 40 percent for Fatah, the mainstream nationalist faction. Confidence in diplomacy has plummeted: only 25 percent of Palestinians believe that a Palestinian state will emerge in the next five years. Violence is increasingly popular, particularly among the youth, and on several occasions during the past three years a majority of the public has supported it.
 There may be a simple fundamental reason for the inability of the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a peaceful resolution to the status of the Occupied Territories for the past 50 years. This reason is fairly obvious when you read all the various “One State, Two State, even Three State solutions that have been suggested by all the interested parties. The Palestinians don’t have a history of unified national governance, nor do they generally place value or trust in that very Western concept. In a 2018 article by Dr. Khalil Shikaki, he cites that “more than half of the [Palestinian] public views the Palestinian Authority as a burden on the Palestinian people”. 




> *Support for the two-state solution is at its lowest level since Oslo, with only 43 percent of Palestinians saying they would accept it. More than half of the public views the PA as a burden on the Palestinian people, and a large majority, ranging from 60 to 70 percent in 2018, demands the resignation of the PA president, Mahmoud Abbas. Public support for Hamas, the largest Islamist faction in Palestine, stands at about one-third, compared to about 40 percent for Fatah, the mainstream nationalist faction. Confidence in diplomacy has plummeted: only 25 percent of Palestinians believe that a Palestinian state will emerge in the next five years. Violence is increasingly popular, particularly among the youth, and on several occasions during the past three years a majority of the public has supported it.*



The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution while top world brokers of peace still tout this approach as “the only viable alternative”. Particularly distressing for the Palestinians and undoubtedly driving their pessimism of this approach, is the view unfolding before them of fifty years of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..
> 
> You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution


Solution to what? What is the problem?


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..
> 
> You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.
Click to expand...


Oooooh..  I LOVE "never answered questions"..  Hit me... LOL...


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution
> 
> 
> 
> Solution to what? What is the problem?
Click to expand...


Is THIS the "never answered question"???   If it is -- I'm disappointed.  The "problem" is a bunch of JORDANIAN citizens isolated in land that Jordan GAVE AWAY -- because they were tired of their "Palestinian problem"...

And what I WANT is a fair solution to that problem that doesn't FORCE Palis into a nation state that they dont WANT or trust just to get their own JUSTICE and self-governance.

Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood"..  What's REQUIRED is self-determination and self-rule.. Had this been done with a City State or Emirates model 3 decades ago -- there would be vibrant self-rule and prosperity for the Palestinians today.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..
> 
> You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooh..  I LOVE "never answered questions"..  Hit me... LOL...
Click to expand...

Sure.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution
> 
> 
> 
> Solution to what? What is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is THIS the "never answered question"???   If it is -- I'm disappointed.  The "problem" is a bunch of JORDANIAN citizens isolated in land that Jordan GAVE AWAY -- because they were tired of their "Palestinian problem"...
> 
> And what I WANT is a fair solution to that problem that doesn't FORCE Palis into a nation state that they dont WANT or trust just to get their own JUSTICE and self-governance.
> 
> Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood"..  What's REQUIRED is self-determination and self-rule.. Had this been done with a City State or Emirates model 3 decades ago -- there would be vibrant self-rule and prosperity for the Palestinians today.
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood".


As you know, I have posted many Palestinian videos (that you have never watched). How many mention creating a new state?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution
> 
> 
> 
> Solution to what? What is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is THIS the "never answered question"???   If it is -- I'm disappointed.  The "problem" is a bunch of JORDANIAN citizens isolated in land that Jordan GAVE AWAY -- because they were tired of their "Palestinian problem"...
> 
> And what I WANT is a fair solution to that problem that doesn't FORCE Palis into a nation state that they dont WANT or trust just to get their own JUSTICE and self-governance.
> 
> Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood"..  What's REQUIRED is self-determination and self-rule.. Had this been done with a City State or Emirates model 3 decades ago -- there would be vibrant self-rule and prosperity for the Palestinians today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you know, I have posted many Palestinian videos (that you have never watched). How many mention creating a new state?
Click to expand...


Ah, yes. The endless YouTube video collection.

Have you considered demanding that the Pals watch them? They should be your target audience as you know what’s best for them.


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..
> 
> You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooh..  I LOVE "never answered questions"..  Hit me... LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
Click to expand...


What was the turn-out in that election?  Is this BIG enough for Hamas to speak FOR ALL Palestinians? The poll I cited was LONG SINCE that election you're hung up on and does not change the fact that the MAJORITY of Palestinians take a dim view of HAVING a "Palestinian Authority" as a govt concept...  No matter WHICH faction gets more votes in an election..

Fact is -- 1.35Mill Palis were REGISTERED to vote in 2006. About 850,000 turned out.. That's 60% of ELIGIBLE voters..  And it's not hard to imagine that in GAZA -- people were AFRAID NOT to vote..  I don't call that a mandate for Hamas to speak for ALL Palestinians..  Do you?  The vote totals for parliament were won by Hamas over Fatah by a margin of only about 30,000 out of 820,000 of the votes cast for the 2 parties..  That's also 'not a mandate".,.

Only reason Hamas GAINED 70 or so seats is because they BOYCOTTED the previous election...

Not the same picture you just painted -- is it???  You're hung up on a LOT of things --  like a 14 yr old election that was PROBABLY the last one Palis will ever have..

Here's an interesting gem from my research for the paper.... 



> On the major single concerns governing voting, 37% considered it to be Safety and Security, while 25% favoured Decreased Corruption.[38]
> 
> An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:
> 
> *Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition
> Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%*
> Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%
> Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%
> Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemploymentSupport for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%
> Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%
> Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%
> Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[39]



*Really should be paying more attention to Pali politics Tinmore and LESS to academics or protesters who never had to fix anything.*.  You can vote AGAINST folks for a lot of reasons.. Like we Americans, the Palis had to choose from 2 evils...


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)
> 
> ◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
> *◈ *So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
> 
> You live in some alternate reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..
> 
> Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government.  A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...
> 
> I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of what I just explained to you..  Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune..  Read what I said again..  Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt..  This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem..  They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt"..  There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..
> 
> You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure..  They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin..  THAT is the natural Arab culture..  And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooh..  I LOVE "never answered questions"..  Hit me... LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the turn-out in that election?  Is this BIG enough for Hamas to speak FOR ALL Palestinians? The poll I cited was LONG SINCE that election you're hung up on and does not change the fact that the MAJORITY of Palestinians take a dim view of HAVING a "Palestinian Authority" as a govt concept...  No matter WHICH faction gets more votes in an election..
> 
> Fact is -- 1.35Mill Palis were REGISTERED to vote in 2006. About 850,000 turned out.. That's 60% of ELIGIBLE voters..  And it's not hard to imagine that in GAZA -- people were AFRAID NOT to vote..  I don't call that a mandate for Hamas to speak for ALL Palestinians..  Do you?  The vote totals for parliament were won by Hamas over Fatah by a margin of only about 30,000 out of 820,000 of the votes cast for the 2 parties..  That's also 'not a mandate".,.
> 
> Only reason Hamas GAINED 70 or so seats is because they BOYCOTTED the previous election...
> 
> Not the same picture you just painted -- is it???  You're hung up on a LOT of things --  like a 14 yr old election that was PROBABLY the last one Palis will ever have..
> 
> Here's an interesting gem from my research for the paper....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the major single concerns governing voting, 37% considered it to be Safety and Security, while 25% favoured Decreased Corruption.[38]
> 
> An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:
> 
> *Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition
> Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%*
> Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%
> Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%
> Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemploymentSupport for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%
> Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%
> Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%
> Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[39]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Really should be paying more attention to Pali politics Tinmore and LESS to academics or protesters who never had to fix anything.*.  You can vote AGAINST folks for a lot of reasons.. Like we Americans, the Palis had to choose from 2 evils...
Click to expand...

The fact is that Hamas won the majority of seats in parliament in 2006. That wasn't just for Gaza. That was for all of Palestine. Sure Hamas won because Fatah sucked so bad.

Hamas and Fatah joined together and formed the Unity Government of March 2007. That was the last legally constituted government in Palestine.

So, the never answered question remains unanswered:

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Podcast Ep 22: Why Israel isn’t as powerful as it wants us to think*



			https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-08/shirhevereipodcast.mp3


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel acquire title to territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
> The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
> 
> Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
> from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
> but can you actually refute a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this only confirms my post.
> 
> From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
> was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
> 
> Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
> yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*​
> ​
> ​
> ​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel and Jews are synonyms.
> The territorial unit 'Palestine' specifically assigned for the Jewish nation.
> 
> Was the term 'nation' used in those documents in reference to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine was already a defined territory. The Palestinians already had nationality and citizenship. That should not have to be reiterated. It was the Jews who had to be fit in there somehow.
Click to expand...


And from day one the territory attached specifically to the Jewish nation.
Exactly why you  always evade the question.

Also conveniently forget it all started in response to Arab pogroms, expulsion of the local Jewish community from all their holy cities, and eventual Jewish uprising initiating the Zionist organization as a response.

Since Jewish right to *re-constitute* sovereignty was signed into international law,
all notions of Jews having to "fit somehow" changed to taking our country back.

But I get it why Arabs still can't get used to the idea,
of losing to a bunch of former dhimmis.

Guess who has to "fit somehow" now?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?



P F Tinmore said:


> Sure.
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?


*(ANSWER)*
​


			
				League of Arab States (LAS) said:
			
		

> To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​*SOURCE*:  Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​



*(COMMENT)*

I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard.  I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.

There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.
​


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> League of Arab States (LAS) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​*SOURCE*:  Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard.  I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.
> 
> There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.
> ​
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> League of Arab States (LAS) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​*SOURCE*:  Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard.  I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.
> 
> There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.
> ​
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


Was murdering Olympic athletes '_self-defense'_?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.


*(COMMENT)*

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:



​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
Click to expand...


It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...


Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you're so afraid
> to address the Olympic massacre?
Click to expand...

What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you're so afraid
> to address the Olympic massacre?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?
Click to expand...


See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you're so afraid
> to address the Olympic massacre?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.
Click to expand...

Only one of many, mostly done by Israel.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
> if you didn't know the answer to that question.
> 
> Not to mention how they treat their own.
> 'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you're so afraid
> to address the Olympic massacre?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only one of many, mostly done by Israel.
Click to expand...

One of many - what?

First set a consistent definition, and stick with it,
then we can discuss your default _"but, but Israel"_ deflections.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Live Virtual Conversation with Juan Cole, Ramadan 2020*
 Includes a talk on Gaza and his book "Muhammad: Prophet of Peace"


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Live Virtual Conversation with Juan Cole, Ramadan 2020*
> Includes a talk on Gaza and his book "Muhammad: Prophet of Peace"


*Is that why Mohammedans can't stop murdering each other,
or why they're killed more by their own than anyone else?*

There's not even a word for _'peace' _in Arabic,
_'salam'_ comes from the same root as _'Islam'_,
and it means _'submission'_...

Which is exactly what they seek to do,
on their quest to colonize several continents.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
Click to expand...

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.


----------



## Hollie

Netanyahu defending Israel for its retaliation aimed at Islamic terrorists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...


Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
Click to expand...

Your post was mindless clutter.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
Click to expand...


It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
Click to expand...

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
Click to expand...

You should remain silent, then.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...


Another of your pointless slogans.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  IF* you are going to use the terminology, *THEN* you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.

​


			
				Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​


​*SOURCE:*  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​​


P F Tinmore said:


> Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.


*(COMMENT)*

While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.

I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law.  Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.  They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options _(choice of means, and moment for deliberation)_.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.


Another Israeli lie. Never happened.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  IF* you are going to use the terminology, *THEN* you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*SOURCE:*  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.
> 
> I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law.  Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.  They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options _(choice of means, and moment for deliberation)_.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




			
				Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).



I can agree with that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie. Never happened.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point™️


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  IF* you are going to use the terminology, *THEN* you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*SOURCE:*  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.
> 
> I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law.  Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.  They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options _(choice of means, and moment for deliberation)_.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can agree with that.
Click to expand...

Self defense?

“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."         The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5)         May Allah Pity his Soul

Odd, but if one chooses to compare the socio-economic successes of Israel vs. “Islam” and the mini-caliphates in Gaza and the West Bank, well, post your favorite YouTube video.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie. Never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point™️
Click to expand...

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie. Never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point™️
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.
> 
> Nothing even close has ever been on the table.
Click to expand...

What right of return? That’s another of your silly slogans.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  IF* you are going to use the terminology, *THEN* you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*SOURCE:*  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.
> 
> I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law.  Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.
> 
> Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.  They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options _(choice of means, and moment for deliberation)_.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxford University’s Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *self-defence  *(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can agree with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense?
> 
> “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."         The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5)         May Allah Pity his Soul
> 
> Odd, but if one chooses to compare the socio-economic successes of Israel vs. “Islam” and the mini-caliphates in Gaza and the West Bank, well, post your favorite YouTube video.
Click to expand...

 I thought that would send you scurrying for the exit.


----------



## Hollie

“Neutralized” means they took his gee-had away and they’re not giving it back. 






__





						i24NEWS
					






					www.i24news.tv
				





Israel Defense Forces killed a Palestinian terrorist attempting an arson attack with two others just after midnight Thursday morning, Hebrew media reported.

Israeli soldiers spotted three Palestinians in the vicinity of highway 465 in Deir Abu Masha'al, a site of frequent attacks according to an IDF spokesperson’s unit tweet.


----------



## Taz

P F Tinmore said:


> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.
> 
> *Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*


Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
​
​


			
				EXCERPT Preamble •  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said:
			
		

> Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​​


​*SOURCE*:   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​
*NOTE:* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.




P F Tinmore said:


> Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.
> 
> Nothing even close has ever been on the table.


*(COMMENT)*

As you can see from the Preamble _(supra)_ "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century).  The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). 

The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained.  As Paul Harvey used to say:  And now for the rest of the story.  

_*Article 12  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​​1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​​

​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT Preamble •  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*SOURCE*:   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​
> *NOTE:* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.
> 
> Nothing even close has ever been on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you can see from the Preamble _(supra)_ "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century).  The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).
> 
> The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained.  As Paul Harvey used to say:  And now for the rest of the story.
> 
> _*Article 12  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​​1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​​
> 
> ​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK! And?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT Preamble •  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*SOURCE*:   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​
> *NOTE:* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.
> 
> Nothing even close has ever been on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you can see from the Preamble _(supra)_ "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century).  The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).
> 
> The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained.  As Paul Harvey used to say:  And now for the rest of the story.
> 
> _*Article 12  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​​1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​​
> 
> ​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK! And?
Click to expand...


After much thought and consideration, that was your best effort.

Stunning.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
​*SOURCE*:   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​


P F Tinmore said:


> OK! And?


*(COMMENT)*

What's the matter.  Can't you read?

There is NO blanket Right of Return (RoR).  

As you can plainly see, the RoR *does not apply* to those who are a threat to: 

◈national security,​◈public order,​◈public health or morals,​◈the rights and freedoms of others.​
The restriction against the return of those descendants that either never lived in Israeli Sovereign territory, or committed crimes against Israeli Citizens is NOT being arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter Israel. 

The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.

The RoR does not apply to any Arab Palestinian that advocated or incited violence. 

 Basically, if you are not one of the 700K people who claimed to have been forcibly displaced (meaning you are ≈ 70+ years of age), then you have no RoR.

That is the "AND?"



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
Click to expand...


But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - *the subject of war*.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Taz said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.
> 
> *Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.
Click to expand...

I didn't find it confusing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is NO blanket Right of Return (RoR).


Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.


What border?

Links?


----------



## Taz

P F Tinmore said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.
> 
> *Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't find it confusing.
Click to expand...

Ya, but you speak the car bomb language, I don't.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews     
⁜→  rylah, et al,

*BLUF*: That is a very tall order. "War" is actually on the verge of being obsolete. So, I put down five legal concepts to start with as a means of keeping us all on the same page.



rylah said:


> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?


*(COMMENT)*

Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.  

And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel_ (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed)_, since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC.   Some of the Articles in the GCIV.   Another entanglement is in the meaning of "Self-Defense" relative to the language of the obligation under the Charter _(threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence)_.

I am also wondering about the General Principles of any allegation.  Should we follow Article 22, RS-ICC _(Nullum crimen sine lege)_:

The definition of a  crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.  In case of ambiguity, ​ the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted.​​Just a few thoughts.




Most Respectfully,
R

*(REFERENCES)*

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008 Opinion Paper
IAC 'vs' NAIC  How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 285
*international armed conflict* (IAC)   Aside from its obvious meaning as a synonym for war, this
term is used as the title of the First Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict
( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ). The term is not defined (save that it includes armed conflicts involving
‘fi ghting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes’
(art. 1(4))), and its meaning becomes clearer in the Second Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
International Armed Conflict ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ), art. 1(1) of which defines its scope as
armed conflicts ‘which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its
armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under
responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to
carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol’.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg417
*non-international armed conflicts* (NIAC) ‘  The distinction between international and non-international
armed conflicts has been important in the application of the laws of war although, in practice, the distinction is often difficult to draw. … The distinction has … been important in the development of the law from a legal regime principally dealing with armed conflicts between states to one also dealing directly with internal armed conflicts. … Certain
international agreements adopted since the mid-twentieth century have established a basic the written regime for jus in _bello interno _, not dependent upon recognition of belligerency, which provides that certain fundamental humanitarian principles are applicable in non-international armed conflicts’: Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (3rd
ed.), 22–23. Thus, common art. 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (75 U.N.T.S. 31 ff .) established some minimum humanitarian principles to be applied to armed conflicts not of an international character. Art. 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ) subsumes within its ambit conflicts that previously might have been thought
of as non-international: ‘conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination’.  And Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of the same date ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ) essentially confirms and extends the fundamental guarantees enumerated in common art. 3. See
Perna, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts ( 2006 ).

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 549
*self-defence* (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence
between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the
Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules
on self-defence: self-defence is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense
is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
. . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by
that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in
the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod
Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law,
66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ) .
(2) Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary
international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g.,
Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International
Confl icts (2nd imp. rev.), 245. However, the International Court of Justice in Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 95 made
it clear that the right of self-defence under international law exists alongside the provision
in art. 51 of the Charter: ‘it cannot be presumed that article 51 is a provision which “subsumes
and supervenes” customary international law’. It has been argued that customary
international law allows for the possibility of anticipatory self-defence (see, e.g., Franck,
Fairness in International Law and Institutions ( 1995 ), 267) or even pre-emptive self-defense
( see Bush doctrine ). Whether such rights exist appears unsettled; however, it is
clear that the legality of a self-defensive action, whether in response to an armed attack or
in anticipation of it, is dependent upon the key concepts of necessity and proportionality.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg 599/600
*terrorism*   Terrorism as a phenomenon has a considerable history, but early terrorism was
mainly internal and thereby readily subject to national criminal jurisdiction. For the origins
and history of terrorism, see Laquer, A History of Terrorism (rev. ed. 2001 ); Laquer,
The New Terrorism ( 1999 ); and Reich, Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,
Theologies, States of Mind (rev. ed. 1998 ). A generally accepted definition of terrorism
has proved elusive for the international community, becoming one of the major obstacles
in the elaboration of a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism. Each of the terrorism
conventions instead merely identified the specific proscribed acts for its purposes.
However, the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism of
9 December 1999 ( U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/109 Annex ) offers (in art. 2(1)(b)) a useful definition,
terrorism being ‘any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian
. . . when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate a population
or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any
act’. Another definition is offered in the (as yet unadopted) Comprehensive Convention
on International Terrorism (see U.N. Doc. 57/37 Annex II ), art. 2(1): terrorism is an act
which ‘by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily
injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place
of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure
facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to [such] property, places, facilities, or
systems . . ., resulting from or likely to result in major economic loss; when the purpose of the
conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government
or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act’. See Saul, Defining
Terrorism in International Law ( 2008 ). See terrorism conventions.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 669
*war *‘War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces…. To be war, the contention must be between States …. War, in principle, is contention between States through their armed forces .’: II Oppenheim 202–204. This definition, though from 1952, reflects the traditional view of war in international law. The term has no precise meaning—or consequences—in contemporary international law, and the term ‘ armed conflict ’ is utilized instead. Armed conflict, as a term of art, began to be used in the four Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War of 12 August 1940 ( 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85,135, 287 ) and had become firmly established by the time of the two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, 609 ). The laws of war, dating from the nineteenth century, regulated the conduct of war (_ jus in Bello_ ; see international humanitarian law ), but not the right to wage war ( _jus ad bellum_ )—although attempts were made to distinguish between the just and the unjust war ( _bellum justum, injustum _). Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter outlawed the use and threat of force, making war (armed conflict between States) illegal save in self-defense (art. 52) or as ordered or authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chap. VII
of the Charter. See Detter, The Law of War (2nd ed.), Part II; Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History ( 2005 ).


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews   
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Yeah, Yeah, I understand your attempt to claim the Boundry of the former Mandate. That doesn't play at all.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg 146
*delimitation *  ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a
boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written
source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by
which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns
of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The
principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular
international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms
are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and
Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ), 4.



RoccoR said:


> The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.





P F Tinmore said:


> What border?
> 
> Links?


*(COMMENT)*

You already have the links to the treaties and to the maps (where available).  You ask this question a dozen times a year.  And it has been answered a dozen times or more.

If there was not a border, then the Hostile Arab Palestinians would be able to walk right across. without obstruction.  Otherwise, "demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, *or evidenced*, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on."




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel_ (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed)_, since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC.


Indeed, this can be confusing.

Israel was created inside Palestine by foreign planning, foreign military, foreign arms, foreign settlers, and foreign money.

Palestine, on the other hand, only operates inside its own borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.


It boils down to simple criteria.

Terrorist = Anyone we don't like.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Yeah, Yeah, I understand your attempt to claim the Boundry of the former Mandate. That doesn't play at all.
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg 146
> *delimitation *  ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a
> boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written
> source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by
> which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns
> of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The
> principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular
> international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms
> are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and
> Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ), 4.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What border?
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You already have the links to the treaties and to the maps (where available).  You ask this question a dozen times a year.  And it has been answered a dozen times or more.
> 
> If there was not a border, then the Hostile Arab Palestinians would be able to walk right across. without obstruction.  Otherwise, "demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, *or evidenced*, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Gaza has no border except the one with Egypt.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.
> 
> Ok, Tinmore,
> after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
> that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
Click to expand...

Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.
> 
> Ok, Tinmore,
> after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
> that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's why I suggested looking specifically at the tactics,
and emphasized detached from political preference, 
so that we can discuss them on their own.

Give me couple hours, I'm just back after work, then prayer.
Will come back and gather some thoughts.


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  rylah, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: That is a very tall order. "War" is actually on the verge of being obsolete. So, I put down five legal concepts to start with as a means of keeping us all on the same page.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.
> 
> And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel_ (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed)_, since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC.   Some of the Articles in the GCIV.   Another entanglement is in the meaning of "Self-Defense" relative to the language of the obligation under the Charter _(threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence)_.
> 
> I am also wondering about the General Principles of any allegation.  Should we follow Article 22, RS-ICC _(Nullum crimen sine lege)_:
> 
> The definition of a  crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.  In case of ambiguity, ​ the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted.​​Just a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008 Opinion Paper
> IAC 'vs' NAIC  How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 285
> *international armed conflict* (IAC)   Aside from its obvious meaning as a synonym for war, this
> term is used as the title of the First Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
> 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict
> ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ). The term is not defined (save that it includes armed conflicts involving
> ‘fi ghting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes’
> (art. 1(4))), and its meaning becomes clearer in the Second Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the
> Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
> International Armed Conflict ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ), art. 1(1) of which defines its scope as
> armed conflicts ‘which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its
> armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under
> responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to
> carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol’.
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg417
> *non-international armed conflicts* (NIAC) ‘  The distinction between international and non-international
> armed conflicts has been important in the application of the laws of war although, in practice, the distinction is often difficult to draw. … The distinction has … been important in the development of the law from a legal regime principally dealing with armed conflicts between states to one also dealing directly with internal armed conflicts. … Certain
> international agreements adopted since the mid-twentieth century have established a basic the written regime for jus in _bello interno _, not dependent upon recognition of belligerency, which provides that certain fundamental humanitarian principles are applicable in non-international armed conflicts’: Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (3rd
> ed.), 22–23. Thus, common art. 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (75 U.N.T.S. 31 ff .) established some minimum humanitarian principles to be applied to armed conflicts not of an international character. Art. 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ) subsumes within its ambit conflicts that previously might have been thought
> of as non-international: ‘conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination’.  And Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of the same date ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ) essentially confirms and extends the fundamental guarantees enumerated in common art. 3. See
> Perna, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts ( 2006 ).
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 549
> *self-defence* (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence
> between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the
> Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules
> on self-defence: self-defence is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense
> is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
> . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by
> that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in
> the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod
> Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law,
> 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ) .
> (2) Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair
> the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
> a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary
> international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g.,
> Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International
> Confl icts (2nd imp. rev.), 245. However, the International Court of Justice in Military and
> Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 95 made
> it clear that the right of self-defence under international law exists alongside the provision
> in art. 51 of the Charter: ‘it cannot be presumed that article 51 is a provision which “subsumes
> and supervenes” customary international law’. It has been argued that customary
> international law allows for the possibility of anticipatory self-defence (see, e.g., Franck,
> Fairness in International Law and Institutions ( 1995 ), 267) or even pre-emptive self-defense
> ( see Bush doctrine ). Whether such rights exist appears unsettled; however, it is
> clear that the legality of a self-defensive action, whether in response to an armed attack or
> in anticipation of it, is dependent upon the key concepts of necessity and proportionality.
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law  pg 599/600
> *terrorism*   Terrorism as a phenomenon has a considerable history, but early terrorism was
> mainly internal and thereby readily subject to national criminal jurisdiction. For the origins
> and history of terrorism, see Laquer, A History of Terrorism (rev. ed. 2001 ); Laquer,
> The New Terrorism ( 1999 ); and Reich, Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,
> Theologies, States of Mind (rev. ed. 1998 ). A generally accepted definition of terrorism
> has proved elusive for the international community, becoming one of the major obstacles
> in the elaboration of a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism. Each of the terrorism
> conventions instead merely identified the specific proscribed acts for its purposes.
> However, the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism of
> 9 December 1999 ( U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/109 Annex ) offers (in art. 2(1)(b)) a useful definition,
> terrorism being ‘any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian
> . . . when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate a population
> or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any
> act’. Another definition is offered in the (as yet unadopted) Comprehensive Convention
> on International Terrorism (see U.N. Doc. 57/37 Annex II ), art. 2(1): terrorism is an act
> which ‘by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily
> injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place
> of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure
> facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to [such] property, places, facilities, or
> systems . . ., resulting from or likely to result in major economic loss; when the purpose of the
> conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government
> or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act’. See Saul, Defining
> Terrorism in International Law ( 2008 ). See terrorism conventions.
> 
> Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 669
> *war *‘War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces…. To be war, the contention must be between States …. War, in principle, is contention between States through their armed forces .’: II Oppenheim 202–204. This definition, though from 1952, reflects the traditional view of war in international law. The term has no precise meaning—or consequences—in contemporary international law, and the term ‘ armed conflict ’ is utilized instead. Armed conflict, as a term of art, began to be used in the four Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War of 12 August 1940 ( 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85,135, 287 ) and had become firmly established by the time of the two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, 609 ). The laws of war, dating from the nineteenth century, regulated the conduct of war (_ jus in Bello_ ; see international humanitarian law ), but not the right to wage war ( _jus ad bellum_ )—although attempts were made to distinguish between the just and the unjust war ( _bellum justum, injustum _). Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter outlawed the use and threat of force, making war (armed conflict between States) illegal save in self-defense (art. 52) or as ordered or authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chap. VII
> of the Charter. See Detter, The Law of War (2nd ed.), Part II; Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History ( 2005 ).
Click to expand...

Thank You for the input, we will need this info,
but I think we can have a more interesting discussion about our own views,
at least at the initial stage, so that we go beyond the years old stagnant discourse.

Then when we can really see each other's definitions, and moral views,
we can compare them to the letter of the law as established today.

I'll appreciate You joining, but at this stage more on the questions
of morality and intent, your personal view on _'self-defense'_ vs _'terror(ism)'_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.
> 
> Ok, Tinmore,
> after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
> that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a religious conflict. The Hamas Charter is explicit in identifying that Islam will destroy Israel. There are also tribal and ethnic elements that define Arab-Moslem socio-religious cultural norms.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.
> 
> Ok, Tinmore,
> after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
> that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly is a religious conflict. The Hamas Charter is explicit in identifying that Islam will destroy Israel. There are also tribal and ethnic elements that define Arab-Moslem socio-religious cultural norms.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Hamas lady posts again.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian nationality.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor.  The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) _(pertaining to threat)_ • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter _(pertaining to actual attack)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
> 
> I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
> 
> View attachment 378755​This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" _(as in unfounded)_ is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning.    It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense.  In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity.  You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort.  It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on.  All entities _(as said)_ have that "Right."   But with that "Right" comes the limitation _(as most "Right" comes with some limitation)_ there is "No Justification for Terrorism."  But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that your default response
> when requested to set a consistent definition?
> 
> Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was mindless clutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of _'terrorists'_, and only act in _'self defense'_,
> but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
> 
> Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can discuss _our idea_ of self defense and terrorism.
> 
> Ok, Tinmore,
> after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
> that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
> 
> I propose - *the subject of war*.
> 
> What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
> Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
> as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
> 
> Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of:* 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.*
> 
> At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
> Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Are you in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly is a religious conflict. The Hamas Charter is explicit in identifying that Islam will destroy Israel. There are also tribal and ethnic elements that define Arab-Moslem socio-religious cultural norms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the Hamas lady posts again.
Click to expand...

Ah, your usual retreat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The story of Palestinian People - Dr. Mustafa Barghouti*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The story of Palestinian People - Dr. Mustafa Barghouti*


Islamic terrorists could stop their war at any time.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews   
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  These children were hurt _(strictly!)_ because of the callous disregard for human life on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the reasons and tactics employed in the prosecution of their campaign for wealth and power.  



P F Tinmore said:


> *The story of Palestinian People - Dr. Mustafa Barghouti*


*(COMMENT)*

While the HoAP have claimed that they pursue the prosecution of Asymmetric Warfare _(utilizing Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, and Radicalized Islamic Followers) _for more than half-century, they have not achieved and decisive progress towards their stated objectives during their envolvle in hostilities.

◈  The HoAP must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating legitimate targets within or near densely populated areas.​​◈  The HoAP must, to the extent feasible, remove Arab Palestinian civilian persons under its control from the vicinity of legitimate HoAP targets.​​◈  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, when the HoAP are “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person (Human Shields) to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” such action constitutes a war crime in the Arab-Israeli conflict.​
The campaign by the HoAP to exact sympathy from the international community by placing these children _(as well as other civilians)_ in harm's way is a means of manipulating the focus of media attention to gain sympathy that will improve the image of the HoAP away from the fact that they are Humanitarian Law violators and to improve the chances for greater contributions from donor nations.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  These children were hurt _(strictly!)_ because of the callous disregard for human life on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the reasons and tactics employed in the prosecution of their campaign for wealth and power.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The story of Palestinian People - Dr. Mustafa Barghouti*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the HoAP have claimed that they pursue the prosecution of Asymmetric Warfare _(utilizing Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, and Radicalized Islamic Followers) _for more than half-century, they have not achieved and decisive progress towards their stated objectives during their envolvle in hostilities.
> 
> ◈  The HoAP must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating legitimate targets within or near densely populated areas.​​◈  The HoAP must, to the extent feasible, remove Arab Palestinian civilian persons under its control from the vicinity of legitimate HoAP targets.​​◈  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, when the HoAP are “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person (Human Shields) to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” such action constitutes a war crime in the Arab-Israeli conflict.​
> The campaign by the HoAP to exact sympathy from the international community by placing these children _(as well as other civilians)_ in harm's way is a means of manipulating the focus of media attention to gain sympathy that will improve the image of the HoAP away from the fact that they are Humanitarian Law violators and to improve the chances for greater contributions from donor nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> away from the fact that they are Humanitarian Law violators



How so?

Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinian Leadership: What a New Model Might Look Like*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews   
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* The al-Shabaka is an academic single channel network billing itself as a _(non-partisan)_ Policy Network (The Palestinian Policy Network).  This segment _(called a Policy Lab) _is discussing the Leadership Crisis, wherein, Marwa Fatafta and Fadi Quran present views narrated by Alaa Tartir.  It is rather dry. BUT it does highlight the weaknesses of the governing system over the Palestinian People.  At the outset of the discussion makes it very clear that President Mahmoud Abbas is the fundamental leader by default, as the National Council _(Legislative Branch)_ and the Executive Committee _(Executive Guidance)_ are ineffective and paralyzed which placed the power into the hands of President Abbas.  The Key address by Marwa Fatafta is that the Palestinian Leadership has "failed" to render unto the people the promise of *Peace, Justice, and Self-Determination* in the last quarter-century since the Oslo Accords.  Ms Fatafta also points out that there is a growing problem under the landscape that criminalizes free-speech under the Authoritarian Regime of President Abbas; and the _*"rampant corruption"*_ within the Regime.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinian Leadership: What a New Model Might Look Like*


*(COMMENT)*

If you dig through this presentation, you find that _(even though it is a contribution to the discussion forum by P F Tinmore)_ it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis. The Arab-Palestinian People know this with about ≈78% believing that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and ≈50% and that the corruption is a burden on the Arab Palestinian People.

Fadi Quran _(21 - 22 minutes into the presentation) _makes the "educated guess" that of the alternative models to choose from, the Arab Palestinian people would rather focus on _(less on state-building and more on)_ "rebuilding the liberation movement" → mentioning the underground inspired protest against the corruption of the Palestinian Government.  I found that very interesting.  Here we have a shift in focus of the Arab Palestinian protests from the Israelis to the Corrupt Government.  Hummm!  

Neither Ms Fatafta or Mr Quran are letting Israel off the hook; but, they are not complaining _(at least in this segment)_ Israeli Occupation.  They are (in a round-about way) being to show some responsibility for their plight.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinian Leadership: What a New Model Might Look Like*



Why would the new model be any different than the line of despots and misfits that defined the earlier model?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The al-Shabaka is an academic single channel network billing itself as a _(non-partisan)_ Policy Network (The Palestinian Policy Network).  This segment _(called a Policy Lab) _is discussing the Leadership Crisis, wherein, Marwa Fatafta and Fadi Quran present views narrated by Alaa Tartir.  It is rather dry. BUT it does highlight the weaknesses of the governing system over the Palestinian People.  At the outset of the discussion makes it very clear that President Mahmoud Abbas is the fundamental leader by default, as the National Council _(Legislative Branch)_ and the Executive Committee _(Executive Guidance)_ are ineffective and paralyzed which placed the power into the hands of President Abbas.  The Key address by Marwa Fatafta is that the Palestinian Leadership has "failed" to render unto the people the promise of *Peace, Justice, and Self-Determination* in the last quarter-century since the Oslo Accords.  Ms Fatafta also points out that there is a growing problem under the landscape that criminalizes free-speech under the Authoritarian Regime of President Abbas; and the _*"rampant corruption"*_ within the Regime.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Leadership: What a New Model Might Look Like*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you dig through this presentation, you find that _(even though it is a contribution to the discussion forum by P F Tinmore)_ it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis. The Arab-Palestinian People know this with about ≈78% believing that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and ≈50% and that the corruption is a burden on the Arab Palestinian People.
> 
> Fadi Quran _(21 - 22 minutes into the presentation) _makes the "educated guess" that of the alternative models to choose from, the Arab Palestinian people would rather focus on _(less on state-building and more on)_ "rebuilding the liberation movement" → mentioning the underground inspired protest against the corruption of the Palestinian Government.  I found that very interesting.  Here we have a shift in focus of the Arab Palestinian protests from the Israelis to the Corrupt Government.  Hummm!
> 
> Neither Ms Fatafta or Mr Quran are letting Israel off the hook; but, they are not complaining _(at least in this segment)_ Israeli Occupation.  They are (in a round-about way) being to show some responsibility for their plight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis.


There is a lot of criticism of the Palestinian government mostly by the Palestinians themselves. The fact is that it is not a Palestinian government. It was imposed on the Palestinians by foreign powers. It is a Bantustan Government.

From 26:00 to 43:00.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews   
⁜→  Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  For some people:
​◈  The Israelis will always be the bad guys.​.....................and some others:​◈  The Arab-Palestinians will always be the bad guys.​..........................and then,​◈  There are a few that will see that both Parties had made mistakes.​


RoccoR said:


> it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis.





Hollie said:


> Why would the new model be any different than the line of despots and misfits that defined the earlier model?





P F Tinmore said:


> There is a lot of criticism of the Palestinian government mostly by the Palestinians themselves. The fact is that it is not a Palestinian government. It was imposed on the Palestinians by foreign powers. It is a Bantustan Government.


*(COMMENT)*

✦  I do not see a correlation to "apartheid" and the law is written.​​✦  I don't see a case of territory that is, under Israeli sovereignty, being set aside for Arab Palestinian inhabitants.​
With the exception of Area "A" where → they have full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority → _(self-government body established in Oslo II Accords)_ and the Gaza Strip _(by unilateral withdrawal)_, I do not see where there is a valid argument for the Arab Palestinians having a history of sovereignty. 




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The al-Shabaka is an academic single channel network billing itself as a _(non-partisan)_ Policy Network (The Palestinian Policy Network).  This segment _(called a Policy Lab) _is discussing the Leadership Crisis, wherein, Marwa Fatafta and Fadi Quran present views narrated by Alaa Tartir.  It is rather dry. BUT it does highlight the weaknesses of the governing system over the Palestinian People.  At the outset of the discussion makes it very clear that President Mahmoud Abbas is the fundamental leader by default, as the National Council _(Legislative Branch)_ and the Executive Committee _(Executive Guidance)_ are ineffective and paralyzed which placed the power into the hands of President Abbas.  The Key address by Marwa Fatafta is that the Palestinian Leadership has "failed" to render unto the people the promise of *Peace, Justice, and Self-Determination* in the last quarter-century since the Oslo Accords.  Ms Fatafta also points out that there is a growing problem under the landscape that criminalizes free-speech under the Authoritarian Regime of President Abbas; and the _*"rampant corruption"*_ within the Regime.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Leadership: What a New Model Might Look Like*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you dig through this presentation, you find that _(even though it is a contribution to the discussion forum by P F Tinmore)_ it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis. The Arab-Palestinian People know this with about ≈78% believing that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and ≈50% and that the corruption is a burden on the Arab Palestinian People.
> 
> Fadi Quran _(21 - 22 minutes into the presentation) _makes the "educated guess" that of the alternative models to choose from, the Arab Palestinian people would rather focus on _(less on state-building and more on)_ "rebuilding the liberation movement" → mentioning the underground inspired protest against the corruption of the Palestinian Government.  I found that very interesting.  Here we have a shift in focus of the Arab Palestinian protests from the Israelis to the Corrupt Government.  Hummm!
> 
> Neither Ms Fatafta or Mr Quran are letting Israel off the hook; but, they are not complaining _(at least in this segment)_ Israeli Occupation.  They are (in a round-about way) being to show some responsibility for their plight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> it frames the unspoken truth that the problems within the failed State of Palestine is largely the fault of the Palestinian People which has lost control of their ineffective government in crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot of criticism of the Palestinian government mostly by the Palestinians themselves. The fact is that it is not a Palestinian government. It was imposed on the Palestinians by foreign powers. It is a Bantustan Government.
> 
> From 26:00 to 43:00.
Click to expand...

That’s just an old, tired cut and paste YouTube video you attached old, tired slogans to.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ There are a few that will see that both Parties had made mistakes.


The only mistake the Palestinians made was not being Jewish.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ There are a few that will see that both Parties had made mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> The only mistake the Palestinians made was not being Jewish.
Click to expand...

This only shows your use of "Palestinians" is to *exclude Jews.*
And that is symptomatic of the entire conflict.

When Arabs expelled Jews from all the holy cities,
that triggered a response, signaling the end of Arab-Muslim hegemony.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ There are a few that will see that both Parties had made mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> The only mistake the Palestinians made was not being Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This only shows your use of "Palestinians" is to *exclude Jews.*
> And that is symptomatic of the entire conflict.
> 
> When Arabs expelled Jews from all the holy cities,
> that triggered a response, signaling the end of Arab-Muslim hegemony.
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> When Arabs expelled Jews from all the holy cities,


That was Jordan. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.

And remember that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ There are a few that will see that both Parties had made mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> The only mistake the Palestinians made was not being Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This only shows your use of "Palestinians" is to *exclude Jews.*
> And that is symptomatic of the entire conflict.
> 
> When Arabs expelled Jews from all the holy cities,
> that triggered a response, signaling the end of Arab-Muslim hegemony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Arabs expelled Jews from all the holy cities,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was Jordan. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.
> 
> And remember that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan.
Click to expand...


Before Arabs helped the Brtish invasion,
and Jordan became a separate country.

I'm talking about the time of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Arab pogroms expelled all the local Jewish community from the holy cities.

The Jewish response gave fruits,
and the land certainly accommodates that.

With the end of the Arab-Muslim hegemony,
the land returned to flourish again.


----------



## rylah

What's funny about Arab pogroms,
raping, murdering and expelling Jews from all holy cities?

Again, symptomatic of the entire conflict.

That's why all these "talks" about history always begin in the middle of the conflict,
and never start before some 50 years into Zionism.

Always AFTER the Arab pogroms.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews   
⁜→  Hollie,  et al,
*(COMMENT)*

This is just one example _(of many)_ to the Arab Palestinians violating, as they have since early on in the conflict,

◈  The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.​​◈  When a choice is possible, the military objective to be selected must be the one that presents the least danger to civilians as set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I.​​◈  The prohibition of attacks directed against any civilian _(outlined in Article 7, Rome Statutes)_.​​In terms of justice and acceptable behaviors, the Arab Palestinians have no real integrity.  And the international community will gradually learn the true nature of the hostile Arab Palestinians.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  Hollie,  et al,
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is just one example _(of many)_ to the Arab Palestinians violating, as they have since early on in the conflict,
> 
> ◈  The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.​​◈  When a choice is possible, the military objective to be selected must be the one that presents the least danger to civilians as set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I.​​◈  The prohibition of attacks directed against any civilian _(outlined in Article 7, Rome Statutes)_.​​In terms of justice and acceptable behaviors, the Arab Palestinians have no real integrity.  And the international community will gradually learn the true nature of the hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Not only are the Arab Palestinians violating laws on criminal and terrorist act, but they are (almost daily) in violation of International Human Rights Law when they encourage and incite activities that places national security in peril, or disrupts public order, or places public health in harm's way. 

The Arab Palestinians have a callous and reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?


*(COMMENT)*

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume."  It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

Today _(relative to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem)_ after Treaties between the parties were concluded and permanent international boundaries were established, that brought a permanent peace, the Arab Palestinians continued a systematic armed struggle, attacking primarily targets that can be easily overcome because they do not have military defenses _(hospitals, schools, shopping centers, restaurants, buses, and other *soft targets*)_ → murdering men. women and children.

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

The Arab Palestinians, even today, conduct such asymmetric operations → Criminal Acts directed against the Jewish State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the Israeli population and to compel a government or an international organization to do _(or to abstain from doing)_ some act that furthers the criminal objective.

*The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs | MEMRI.*

*Palestinian Activist Calls for Terrorist Attacks | MEMRI*

*The Hamas terror group in Gaza is attempting to salvage its public image after one of its leading members was caught on camera telling Palestinians to “attack every Jew on planet earth.”*

​

			
				UN Security Council said:
			
		

> 1.Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:
> 
> (a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​



SOURCE:  S/RES/1624 (2005)
​
​

			
				Article 19 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976) said:
			
		

> 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
> 
> 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
> 
> 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
> 
> (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;​​(b) *For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.*​



SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)
​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not only are the Arab Palestinians violating laws on criminal and terrorist act, but they are (almost daily) in violation of International Human Rights Law when they encourage and incite activities that places national security in peril, or disrupts public order, or places public health in harm's way.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have a callous and reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is NOT a matter of what I "assume."  It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.
> 
> Today _(relative to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem)_ after Treaties between the parties were concluded and permanent international boundaries were established, that brought a permanent peace, the Arab Palestinians continued a systematic armed struggle, attacking primarily targets that can be easily overcome because they do not have military defenses _(hospitals, schools, shopping centers, restaurants, buses, and other *soft targets*)_ → murdering men. women and children.
> 
> No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, even today, conduct such asymmetric operations → Criminal Acts directed against the Jewish State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the Israeli population and to compel a government or an international organization to do _(or to abstain from doing)_ some act that furthers the criminal objective.
> 
> *The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs | MEMRI.*
> 
> *Palestinian Activist Calls for Terrorist Attacks | MEMRI*
> 
> *The Hamas terror group in Gaza is attempting to salvage its public image after one of its leading members was caught on camera telling Palestinians to “attack every Jew on planet earth.”*
> 
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> UN Security Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​SOURCE:  S/RES/1624 (2005)​​
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 19 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.​​2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.​​3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:​​(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;​​(b) *For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)​​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.


According to who?

Links?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

It really does not pay to talk to you.



RoccoR said:


> It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.





P F Tinmore said:


> According to who?
> Links?


*(COMMENT)*

I gave you examples and links.  I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts.  And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.  Then you turn around and ask for it again.

As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents _(from the Global Terrorism Database)_ by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in *Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality* Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law _(or any combination thereof)_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It really does not pay to talk to you.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to who?
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I gave you examples and links.  I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts.  And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.  Then you turn around and ask for it again.
> 
> As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents _(from the Global Terrorism Database)_ by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in *Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality* Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law _(or any combination thereof)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I haven't heard from the IRA, the FLN, and the ANC lately.

Did they lose?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.


You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

The Zionists never went to ''Palestine'' to attack anyone. Your skewed version of history reeks of ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It really does not pay to talk to you.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to who?
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I gave you examples and links.  I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts.  And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.  Then you turn around and ask for it again.
> 
> As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents _(from the Global Terrorism Database)_ by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in *Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality* Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law _(or any combination thereof)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't heard from the IRA, the FLN, and the ANC lately.
> 
> Did they lose?
Click to expand...

A rather ignorant (and false) attempt at comparison.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF:* In the late 14th Century, Jews were invited to immigrate to the Ottoman Empire (especially) from France where they were persecuted by King Charles for the property and wealth. The Jewish people and Muslims alike were rescued brought back to the Ottoman Empire (early 15th Century) by the Admiral (Ottoman Empire) Kemal Reis, Commander of the Turkish Navy. The Jewish and Muslims had been expelled by various European Regimes.



RoccoR said:


> No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.





P F Tinmore said:


> You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers, at the San Remo Convention (1920) determined it was time to establish a National Home for the Jewish People. To that end, the Allied Powers *decided to implement the Balfour Declaration* and with it, they embedded the requirement in Article 4 of the British Mandate _(a mandate to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home)_.  And, with that, in Article 6 of the British Mandate, the Mandatory Power was to *facilitate Jewish immigration* under suitable conditions and shall encourage.

The Jewish People *DID NOT ATTACK* the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine or its inhabitance.  Very clearly, the Jewish were *invited to immigrate* → with a very clear intention that they were to help in reconstituting their  National Home. It could not have been made plainer.

In case there were those that did not understand the British interpretation of their own "White Paper" the following salient points were made.

[From Paragraph 45 of the UK History of Administration  2 October 1947 (A/AC.14/8)] :

In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy.   The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on 13 February, 1931..  This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt.   it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper.  Among them were the following:​

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”


“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”


“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
*(∑)*

The idea suggesting that the Jewish People invaded the Palestinians is false information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion and obscure the truth.  

The Arab Palestinians declined to assist the High Commissioner in the governance of the Territory under the Mandate.  Thus, by default, the Governing Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* In the late 14th Century, Jews were invited to immigrate to the Ottoman Empire (especially) from France where they were persecuted by King Charles for the property and wealth. The Jewish people and Muslims alike were rescued brought back to the Ottoman Empire (early 15th Century) by the Admiral (Ottoman Empire) Kemal Reis, Commander of the Turkish Navy. The Jewish and Muslims had been expelled by various European Regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers, at the San Remo Convention (1920) determined it was time to establish a National Home for the Jewish People. To that end, the Allied Powers *decided to implement the Balfour Declaration* and with it, they embedded the requirement in Article 4 of the British Mandate _(a mandate to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home)_.  And, with that, in Article 6 of the British Mandate, the Mandatory Power was to *facilitate Jewish immigration* under suitable conditions and shall encourage.
> 
> The Jewish People *DID NOT ATTACK* the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine or its inhabitance.  Very clearly, the Jewish were *invited to immigrate* → with a very clear intention that they were to help in reconstituting their  National Home. It could not have been made plainer.
> 
> In case there were those that did not understand the British interpretation of their own "White Paper" the following salient points were made.
> 
> [From Paragraph 45 of the UK History of Administration  2 October 1947 (A/AC.14/8)] :
> 
> In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy.   The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on 13 February, 1931..  This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt.   it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper.  Among them were the following:​
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> *(∑)*
> 
> The idea suggesting that the Jewish People invaded the Palestinians is false information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion and obscure the truth.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians declined to assist the High Commissioner in the governance of the Territory under the Mandate.  Thus, by default, the Governing Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Very clearly, the Jewish were *invited to immigrate*


By foreign fuckers who had no sovereignty over the land.

And besides, immigrate is a misnomer.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF:* The Allied Powers assumed "all rights and title." Not the habitual inhabitants.

​

			
				Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby *renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories *situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.



SOURCE:  *Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne (July 24, 1923)*​



RoccoR said:


> Very clearly, the Jewish were *invited to immigrate*





P F Tinmore said:


> By foreign fuckers who had no sovereignty over the land.


*(COMMENT)*

True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).  But that was a decision for the Allied Powers to make.  It was not prohibited by the Treaty.  And the Arab Palestinians were NOT parties to the Treaty.

Governmental responsibilities and duties were outside the Arab Palestinian influence → as by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The attempt was summarily rejected by the Arab Palestinians.  And that position remained in place through 1948, when they rejected when asked to avail themselves to provide authoritative information and other assistance as the Palestine Commission may seek.

There is an argument to be made here.  While the habitual inhabitants, formerly under the effective control of the OETA, had feet on the ground, they did not have any political claim to the territory.  The habitual inhabitants did have "civil and religious" rights.  Civil Rights, while not codified, were understood to included real estate and private personal property ownership.  Religious Rights, again not codified, were understood to include the freedom to practice any religion.



P F Tinmore said:


> And besides, immigrate is a misnomer.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, well, I'm not sure you understand the terminology.  Immigration is defined and permitted/prohibited by domestic law.  The International Community is not involved with issues under the domestic jurisdiction.



			
				The International Relations Dictionary said:
			
		

> *Nationalist Movement: Zionism (49)*
> Originally an international effort to create a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The Tirst Zi(^nist Congress met under the leadership
> of Theodor Herzl in 1897. For many years, Zionism remained a minority Jewish view. Ihe majority (assimilationists) were satished with citizenship in the countries of their birth, especially in Western Europe and the Americas. After Adolf Hitler's murder of millions of Jews during World War II, Zionism received new support. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 fulfilled the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. Today, Zionists promote political, economic, financial, and military support for Israel, and the immigration and resettlement
> of Jews in Israel.


SOURCE:  The International Relations Dictionary • 3d Edition • Page 40 • © 1988 by Jack C. Piano and Roy Olton • ABC-CLIO Inc • 130 Cremona, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 931 16-191 I​
I suppose you are trying to make the point that Israel is a subdivision of Palestine.  Well, that rock won't fly.  This would be a variation on your theme that Israel has no borders/boundaries _(internationally recognized demarcations)_.  That would be wrong. And I don't believe you will find an International Law that says otherwise.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).


So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?

Besides just having the guns to do it.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).
> 
> 
> 
> So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
> 
> Besides just having the guns to do it.
Click to expand...

Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF:* Palestine is a political construct.  And there is no universal understanding that a political construct is permanent.  
...................................................................Slovenia, 
...................................................................Croatia, 
...................................................................Macedonia, 
*Example:*  Yugoslavia no longer exists =  Bosnia, 
..................................................................Serbia, 
..................................................................Montenegro, 
..................................................................Herzegovina



RoccoR said:


> True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).





P F Tinmore said:


> So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
> Besides just having the guns to do it.


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers established the Mandate Government - and there is NO reason why - The Allied Powers can NOT disestablish the Mandate Government.  But the Allied Powers did not destroy Palestine, the remainder has just transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed.  It evolved into a new entity.  It may not be the entity _(the outcome) _that many wanted, but Israel is a product of Self-Determination.  Conflict _(Arab League Aggression)_ altered the original desired outcome.

In 1950, just as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan _(March 1950)_ annexed the West Bank - in the same year, China did a very similar thing to when it annexed Tibet _(October 1950)_.  It is hard to say as to whether Jordan gave China the Idea or if the reverse is true.  It could be the case that the strategy of independently developed _(not likely but still possible)_.

 AND, not all that long ago _(March 2014)_, the Russian Federation annexed Crimea.

While there are examples that the international community says is "illegal" --- it does not change the fact that in contemporary times, these changes in political constructs still occur.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> but Israel is a product of Self-Determination.


You have not answered that question when I asked it before.

You just ducked it.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
> Besides just having the guns to do it.





P F Tinmore said:


> You have not answered that question when I asked it before.
> 
> You just ducked it.


*(COMMENT)*

Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."  

I cannot answer your invalid question.  It must be reasonable.  Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" _(AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) _was destroyed _(usage undefined)_.

I did not "duck the question."  I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
> Besides just having the guns to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not answered that question when I asked it before.
> 
> You just ducked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."
> 
> I cannot answer your invalid question.  It must be reasonable.  Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" _(AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) _was destroyed _(usage undefined)_.
> 
> I did not "duck the question."  I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You always try to apply pretzel logic to deny the facts. The fact is that Palestine has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Of course you don't see a problem if you believe that the Palestinians have no rights. Foreign aggression is a major violation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
> Besides just having the guns to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not answered that question when I asked it before.
> 
> You just ducked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."
> 
> I cannot answer your invalid question.  It must be reasonable.  Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" _(AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) _was destroyed _(usage undefined)_.
> 
> I did not "duck the question."  I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always try to apply pretzel logic to deny the facts. The fact is that Palestine has been destroyed by foreign powers.
> 
> Of course you don't see a problem if you believe that the Palestinians have no rights. Foreign aggression is a major violation.
Click to expand...

You have made no supportable case that “Palestine” has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Indeed, that’s really just a hysterical rant absent any objective commentary.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews 
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  Hollie, et al,

BLUF:  Yes our friend "Hollie" is correct.



			
				Hollie said:
			
		

> You have made no supportable case that “Palestine” has been destroyed by foreign powers.
> 
> Indeed, that’s really just a hysterical rant absent any objective commentary.


*(COMMENT)*

If anything, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization_ (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people)_ who is responsible for retarding the Human Development of the people in the territories.  



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Yes our friend "Hollie" is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have made no supportable case that “Palestine” has been destroyed by foreign powers.
> 
> Indeed, that’s really just a hysterical rant absent any objective commentary.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If anything, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization_ (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people)_ who is responsible for retarding the Human Development of the people in the territories.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...










						How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland | Days Of Palestine
					

When I was a child growing up in a Gaza refugee camp, I looked forward to November 2. On that day, every year, thousands of students and camp residents would descend upon the main square of the camp,




					daysofpalestine.ps


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Isn't that what _"Free Palestine"_ originally means?


*Know Your History: Even the Term “Free Palestine” Was Co-opted From the Jews*

_“Free, free Palestine!”_
These are the words shouted out by Israel haters worldwide, more often than not an expression of their wish for the destruction of the state of Israel.

But did you know the first use of the words “Free Palestine” were for the exact opposite objective?



*













						Know Your History: Even the Term "Free Palestine" Was Co-opted From the Jews
					

"Free, free Palestine!"These are the words shouted out by Israel haters worldwide, more often than not an expression of their wish for the destruction of the state of Israel. But did you know the first use of the words "Free Palestine" were for the exact opposite objective?




					www.israellycool.com
				



*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*How Israel/Palestine Became a Central Issue in US Politics*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not even sure I know what this snippet means.
Does this question the reality of Anti-Semitism?

*US House committee holds hearing on antisemitism*​"This is not the time for thoughts and prayers. We need resources and action," said Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. (JAN 2020)​​*Los Angeles City Council passes legislation to prevent hate crimes*​The passage of the legislation comes days after the LAPD released data showing that anti-Semitic hate crimes rose by 60.5% in 2019 from 2018; hate crimes overall increased 10.3% during the same period. It is the fourth year in a row that hate crimes in the city have increased. (FEB 2020)​​*‘This is absolutely abhorrent’: Nazi flag at Sanders rally sparks outcry, concerns about safety*​“It was absolutely wild,” Brianna Westbrook, a national surrogate for the Sanders campaign, told The Washington Post. “I never thought I would have seen a swastika at a political event. It’s gross.”​​While people near the protester quickly ripped the offending item out of his hands and he was removed from the arena, the mere appearance of a Nazi flag at an event dedicated to a democratic socialist who could become the country’s first Jewish president sparked outcry. (MAR 2020)​​*In Unprecedented Move, US State Department Designates Russian Neo-Nazi Group as ‘Terrorist Organization’*​The US State Department on Monday sanctioned a violent Russian neo-Nazi group as a terrorist organization — marking the first time that a white supremacist group has been designated in this manner.​​US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and counterterrorism coordinator Nathan Sales announced the move against the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) and its leaders at a virtual press briefing. (APR 2020)​
I could list at least *one for each month *this year.  But it would be a waste of bandwidth.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Keynote Address by Nadia Hijab at the 3rd Annual Grassroots Advocacy Training and Lobby Day sponsored by Interfaith Peace-Builders and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

On RAI with Paul Jay, *Phyllis Bennis* traces her development from active Zionist youth to whom Jewish identity meant support for Israel, to a leading American anti-Zionist writer and analyst… (1/4)


On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, *Phyllis Bennis* examines the Israeli debate about Iran and Palestine, and the complex changes taking place in Middle East politics… (2/4)


On RAI with Paul Jay, *Phyllis Bennis* examines the coming Geneva conference on Syria and the unwillingness of the West to deal with the humanitarian crisis… (3/4)


On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, *Phyllis Bennis* examines proposals to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict… (4/4)


----------



## Hollie




----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian nationality.



What does nationality have to do with justice if a people dont WANT to create a 21st century nation? 

Serious question..  Ya got an answer?  The mandate was citizenship in the British Empire..  The time the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- they were Jordanian citizens..  No more Palestinian Authority.  No future of having a democratically nation..  

Reviewing the history since the Mandate will SHOW failure after failure of FORCING the Palestinians into a governmental model that they abhor...


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does nationality have to do with justice if a people dont WANT to create a 21st century nation?
> 
> Serious question..  Ya got an answer?  The mandate was citizenship in the British Empire..  The time the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- they were Jordanian citizens..  No more Palestinian Authority.  No future of having a democratically nation..
> 
> Reviewing the history since the Mandate will SHOW failure after failure of FORCING the Palestinians into a governmental model that they abhor...
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> The mandate was citizenship in the British Empire.. The time the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- they were Jordanian citizens.


Both of these are incorrect. The Palestinians are citizens of Palestine If a Palestine wanted to go to Britain, he would need to get a visa. The LoN also ruled that citizenship was not to be to the country that was assigned the mandate.

Jordan was promised the West Bank by the Zionists if they did not attack the new Jewish state in the 1948 war. It was illegal for Jordan to annex occupied Palestinian territory. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank. The rest of the world considered it to be an occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> What does nationality have to do with justice if a people dont WANT to create a 21st century nation?


They don't?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does nationality have to do with justice if a people dont WANT to create a 21st century nation?
> 
> Serious question..  Ya got an answer?  The mandate was citizenship in the British Empire..  The time the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- they were Jordanian citizens..  No more Palestinian Authority.  No future of having a democratically nation..
> 
> Reviewing the history since the Mandate will SHOW failure after failure of FORCING the Palestinians into a governmental model that they abhor...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was citizenship in the British Empire.. The time the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- they were Jordanian citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both of these are incorrect. The Palestinians are citizens of Palestine If a Palestine wanted to go to Britain, he would need to get a visa. The LoN also ruled that citizenship was not to be to the country that was assigned the mandate.
> 
> Jordan was promised the West Bank by the Zionists if they did not attack the new Jewish state in the 1948 war. It was illegal for Jordan to annex occupied Palestinian territory. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank. The rest of the world considered it to be an occupation.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There are no citizens of a non-existent ''state of Pal'istan''.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Palestinian Cleric Speaks Out Against Normalization with Israel: Muslims Must Hate the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel Propaganda in the News Media- UMass Professor Emeritus Sut Jhally*


----------



## Hollie

Countering the gee-had.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*NOT BACKING DOWN: ISRAEL, FREE SPEECH & THE BATTLE FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why is the Mainstream Media Silent on Palestine?

*Mnar Muhawesh Adley: Founder, Producer, and Host at #MintPressNews Rania Khalek: Journalist, Producer, and Host at #UnauthorizedDisclosure Anya Parampil : Journalist at #TheGrayzone


----------



## Hollie

Pali mother of the year nominee.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

As Trump announces his plan to carve up Palestine, we speak to Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, on why resistance is now more urgent than ever.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The State of Palestine Due to the "State of Israel" w/ Miko Peled*


----------



## Ropey

Palestinians in Gaza burned pictures of Israeli, U.S., Bahraini and United Arab Emirates leaders in protest over the two Gulf countries' moves to normalize ties with Israel  ...

Palestinians: 'Our Arab brothers have abandoned us' 









						Palestinians: 'Our Arab brothers have abandoned us'
					

During a meeting Arab foreign ministers refused to endorse the Palestinian draft resolution that rejects the Israel-UAE deal.




					t.co
				




You are Arabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rabbi Dovid Weiss: Zionism has created 'rivers of blood' | Talk to Al Jazeera*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

It's called a Death Cult for a reason.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine by Nur Masalha Book Summary - Review (AudioBook)*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Leader of Palestinian Militant Faction: Palestinians Taught People of the Gulf How to Read and Write.

They also invented canned tuna.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"It Is Called Apartheid" - Rep. Betty McCollum Speech at USCPR National Conference*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Israel Lobby's Growing Assault on Free Speech*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Filmmaker Julia Bacha shows solutions in Israeli-Palestinian conflict*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights to Resources*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why Palestine is still the issue - Anne Alexander, Ilan Pappé and Nur Masalha*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Talking About Israel - Narratives Of Palestinian Nationalism*
According to a Zionist.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## LuckyDuck

The Palestinian Muslims will "never" agree to a signed permanent peace treaty.  When the Jews got a portion of their homeland back via the National Security Council in the United Nations, the first thing the Muslims there did, was say......"We will not live under Jewish rule," and left.  They went to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.  They consider the Jews to be occupiers.  
The reason for that stance:  Look no further than the Quran.  If Muslims conquer an area from infidels (non-believers), the land is Muslim.  If those that they took the land from manage to get it back, they are to be considered "occupiers."  The Jews that are living there, even those that moved to Israel, from other nations, are descendants of the original Hebrews of antiquity.  
The other reason for their stance:  Muslims must seek to conquer all infidel lands and not live under infidel rule, except to eventually overcome it.
One just needs to look at what's been happening in Europe since the massive migration of Muslims into those nations.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Stealing land, stealing content. A narrative for Pal Arabs.


----------



## TDontTouchMyCigars

MartyNYC said:


> Arabs in Israel: In Israel we are free. “Peaceful and beautiful.” We do not want to live under “palestinian” rule!



Do you know how the Israeli Shin Bet recruits Spies at the PA? 

They just offer them Israeli citizenship


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Eva Bartlett and Robert Inlakesh on the realities of Israel's occupation of Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act - Brad Parker*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*American Jews & Israel: A Faltering Relationship with Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb & Allan Brownfeld*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Settler Colonialism from America to Palestine  - Walter Hixson*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*MSNBC's Sole Palestinian Voice Rula Jebreal Takes on Pro-Israeli Gov't Bias at Network & in US Media*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why Israel Doesn't Want UNESCO to Recognize Hebron*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Webinar: The Settlement Economy. A Human Rights Problem?*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

*RE:* Why is Pelosi Blocking Comprehensive COVID-19 Testing For House Democrats?
*⁜→* ColonelAngus, et al,

*BLUF:* This is all Voodoo Political Babel (VPB). What I did not here is an economic impact statement of their proposal...



P F Tinmore said:


> *Why Israel Doesn't Want UNESCO to Recognize Hebron*


*(COMMENT)*

OK, so what if it is a World Heritage Site (WHS).  All Israel has to do is the due diligence required of any responsible government.  I suspect that Israel will find it necessary to combine the necessary protections of the heritage site into the Municipal Planning programs, set up staff, and establish curators and conservators for the overall security of the site.

You already know how the Israelis love to explore such ancient locations.  I don't see the Arab Palestinians doing anything of the sort.  In fact, what I've seen them do to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem leads me to believe that the site will deteriorate over time if the conservation effort is put into the underfunded hand of the Arab Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Webinar: The Settlement Economy. A Human Rights Problem?*


*(COMMENT)*

I don't understand this, sop what if UN says there are 112 companies operating in settlements.  The Arab Palestinians, as I understand it, are already at a 25%(+) Unemployment rate.  And now they want to increase that rate by driving the companies out.  Hummm...  What sense does that make?

I thought that the Arab Palestinians agreed that Area "C" is under the complete jurisdiction of the Israelis.  So what is their complaint? 

What is the economic impact on the local economy IF Israel removes the exchange with these 112 businesses trading partners?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noura Erakat on Black-Palestinian Solidarity and Palestine As a Progressive Issue*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Lens on Palestine: Stitching Palestine discussion with Nusayba Hammad*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *In the role of fighting the Israelis, women have a duty.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Lens on Palestine: Stitching Palestine discussion with Nusayba Hammad*


*(PALESTINIAN POLICY QUOTES)*

It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers,* information and media people*, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).

That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through *information campaigns, films,* and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

*(COMMENT)*

She follows the line, the duty, the role.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Susan Abulhawa: Grace in the Face of Violence*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Collective Punishment: Israel's Strategy to Subdue Palestinian Resistance*


----------



## Hollie

*Grace in the face of Paradise Lost*


Palestinian Sheikh: Mosques in Palestine Have Been Turned into Pigsties, Brothels, Bars


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *This is a case of the Arab Palestinians looking at the fragment of one law, and disregarding the other 99% of the body of law pertaining to the contained in the 19 Counter-Terrorism International Legal Instruments, as well as over 40 Resolutions on the matter of Counter-Terrorism.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Collective Punishment: Israel's Strategy to Subdue Palestinian Resistance*


*(COMMENT)*

I listened to the Propaganda Video twice, and find it to be a more than misinformation; deliberately intended to deceive the audience.  I could not find a single point that was not covered by Law, Action Plan, Convention or Treatice.  That would include the coverage over Financial issues, Safe Havens, Small Arms and Light Weapons Resolutions, and the Production and Use of Explosive and the targeting of against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.  I also covers those that contribute or support, directly or indirectly those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts.  I could not find any case mentioned that was not covered.

If you have one that you would like to know if it is covered, please identify it.  It only looks like collective punishment because so many Arab Palestinians are involved, directly or indirectly, in such criminal enterprises.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel exporting occupation and apartheid to the US.*

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

*Zionism, Labor, Privatization, SFSU/AMED and Public Education With SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi*


----------



## Hollie

Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel. Presumably, to use up that excess of Pal youngsters.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Palestinian Preacher Al-Makharze: Allah Wants Girls to Be Married off When They Start Menstruating



...and Allah knows best.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Palestinian Preacher Al-Makharze: Allah Wants Girls to Be Married off When They Start Menstruating
> 
> 
> 
> ...and Allah knows best.


It is interesting that I post from many different sources while virtually all of your posts are from MEMRI and PMW. Both of these are well known Israeli propaganda organizations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*War on Gaza: Session 2: Political and Moral Dimensions*


----------



## Hollie

Calling the Faithful.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Calling the Faithful.


Another MEMRI!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling the Faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another MEMRI!
Click to expand...

 A trip down Memri lane.


----------



## Hollie

PA TV Host Dana Abu Shamsiya Praises Palestinian Who Stabbed Israeli Policemen


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  I have fallen into the discussion trap a number of times.

*(COMMENT)*
Let's make it clear, the central theme is NOT about whether someone is Arab Palestinian or not.  Being born in the undefined territory of Palestine does not, in and by itself, grant citizenship or acquire a nationality.  The central theme is about the Right for Israel to Exist and within a perimeter that is militarily defendable.

Dana Abu Shamsiya (DAS) can call herself "Palestinian" all she wants.  But what does that get her_*?*_

If there is a sovereign realm of "Palestine" → I don't know where it is...   Different Arab Palestinians say different things in their description and outline.  But one of the more common themes is:  

_"I am a Palestinian lion cub, planted in my land… 
The blood of the martyrs throws through my veins… I harvest souls on the battlefield. 
I am a guardian of Al-Aqsa and the [Dome of] the Rock… 
I am feared by the armies of betrayal. I am desired by the black-eyed virgins [of Paradise]… 
Liberation shall come at the hands of the lion cubs."_ (DAS)​
I am sure that the wizards of Nashville can put these words to a good foot-stomping score of music.  But what I hear is the confession of a person that promotes and incites violence.   Dana Abu Shamsiya supports organizations that commit "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. DAS wants to provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. 

But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  I have fallen into the discussion trap a number of times.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> Let's make it clear, the central theme is NOT about whether someone is Arab Palestinian or not.  Being born in the undefined territory of Palestine does not, in and by itself, grant citizenship or acquire a nationality.  The central theme is about the Right for Israel to Exist and within a perimeter that is militarily defendable.
> 
> Dana Abu Shamsiya (DAS) can call herself "Palestinian" all she wants.  But what does that get her_*?*_
> 
> If there is a sovereign realm of "Palestine" → I don't know where it is...   Different Arab Palestinians say different things in their description and outline.  But one of the more common themes is:
> 
> _"I am a Palestinian lion cub, planted in my land…
> The blood of the martyrs throws through my veins… I harvest souls on the battlefield.
> I am a guardian of Al-Aqsa and the [Dome of] the Rock…
> I am feared by the armies of betrayal. I am desired by the black-eyed virgins [of Paradise]…
> Liberation shall come at the hands of the lion cubs."_ (DAS)​
> I am sure that the wizards of Nashville can put these words to a good foot-stomping score of music.  But what I hear is the confession of a person that promotes and incites violence.   Dana Abu Shamsiya supports organizations that commit "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. DAS wants to provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Which opposing views?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *In the role of fighting the Israelis, women have a duty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lens on Palestine: Stitching Palestine discussion with Nusayba Hammad*
> 
> 
> 
> *(PALESTINIAN POLICY QUOTES)*
> 
> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers,* information and media people*, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).
> 
> That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through *information campaigns, films,* and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> She follows the line, the duty, the role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where did you get all that from the video?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.



RoccoR said:


> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.





P F Tinmore said:


> Which opposing views?


*(COMMENT)*

The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Where did you get all that from the video?


*(COMMENT)*

That is what your submission demonstrates.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which opposing views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* You simply do not know what the International Border is for the 1920 Creation of the Mandate for Palestine.
​


RoccoR said:


> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.





P F Tinmore said:


> Which opposing views?





RoccoR said:


> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."





P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?


*(COMMENT)*

The International Border for Palestine (as you call it) was the creation by the Mandatory selected by the Allied Powers.  It was the boundary of the territory for which the Mandate applied, and was short-titled "Palestine" by the British Administration for the Civil Government.

The "Right to Exist" was a culmination of all the factors and events leading to the self-determination of the Jewish State (Israel).    The creation of the Jewish State did not need to be endorsed by the Arab Palestinians.  In fact, the creation did not require recognition of any type.

Israel was not created inside Palestine's International Borders but was a partition created by the act of self-determination.  The fact that you, as a Hostile Arab Palestinian indirectly supporting the forces opposing Israel's "Right to Exist," is a demonstration of the "Opposing View."




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling the Faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another MEMRI!
Click to expand...

Are you saying what he posted is not real ?


----------



## toastman

Got a link t


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which opposing views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?
Click to expand...

Palestine does not have, and have never had international borders


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Got a link t
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which opposing views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine does not have, and have never had international borders
Click to expand...

You said it.

You prove it.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which opposing views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?
Click to expand...


Hey , Tinmore! Where is Balestine's international borders? I may want to relocate to Balestine if Biden wins.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


>


Have you stopped replying to me, Tinmore? You know I love you.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link t
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Now you are just being argumentative without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the true theme is all about the Right to the Existence of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinians like DAS, who support violence, have a bit more of a counter-Theme:
> ​◈  Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people;​​◈  Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land;​​◈  No recognition of the legitimacy of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long;​​◈  Liberation of Palestine is a national duty;​
> And, in my opinion, these two opposing views should be the central theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which opposing views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Right for Israel to Exist"  Vs "The Right of the Arab Palestinians to Oppose the Existence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so where does Israel  get the "right" to exist inside Palestine's international borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine does not have, and have never had international borders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said it.
> 
> You prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove what? I could find links for every country in the world that says “this countries international borders are .........” 
there is nothing for Palestine however. Also:
“In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders”








						Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				



Any other questions ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

One Democratic State Conference.


----------



## Hollie

Islamic Apartheid


Palestinian Islamic Scholar: Only Mizrahi Jews Would Have the Right to Live Amongst the Palestinians


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Fatah Central Committee Member Jamal Muhaisen: Hamas Is ISIS in Palestine


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

*BLUF:* This was expressed over a year ago.



Hollie said:


> Fatah Central Committee Member Jamal Muhaisen: Hamas Is ISIS in Palestine


*(COMMENT)*

Our friend Hollie points-out that this feeling is not new.  This interview is over a year old.  And it illuminates a gradual growth in the level of discontent with the Arab Palestinian leadership.

This is a very similar political view that has been expressed many times in the discussion group over the past several years.  Our friend Hollie brings it to the forefront once again.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

Can anyone remember when Ilan Pappe actually had a job; other than Israel Bashing?



P F Tinmore said:


> One Democratic State Conference.


*(COMMENT)*

I like it when he describes himself as an "expatriate" Israeli historian and "socialist activist."  When I came back from Vietnam, I could not believe how College Professors taught "from the view of an Idea World" to impressionable students.

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Can anyone remember when Ilan Pappe actually had a job; other than Israel Bashing?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Democratic State Conference.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I like it when he describes himself as an "expatriate" Israeli historian and "socialist activist."  When I came back from Vietnam, I could not believe how College Professors taught "from the view of an Idea World" to impressionable students.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

I am a Vietnam Vet. I still don't know why I was there. Perhaps Smedley Butler could give us a clue. Or perhaps Susan Abulhawa.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

I'm afraid Fatah and Hamas officials will continue to seethe over Israeli-Arab normalization of relations 
as it reduces their clout in the region.



Fatah, Hamas Officials out at UAE over Deal with Israel: Take Your Hands Off the Palestinian Cause!


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Can anyone remember when Ilan Pappe actually had a job; other than Israel Bashing?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Democratic State Conference.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I like it when he describes himself as an "expatriate" Israeli historian and "socialist activist."  When I came back from Vietnam, I could not believe how College Professors taught "from the view of an Idea World" to impressionable students.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

It seems Pappe found something of a niche market churning out books that appeal to a ''social justice warrior'' mentality of leftist US students.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* I don't have an explanation for the Vietnam experience, myself.



RoccoR said:


> I like it when he describes himself as an "expatriate" Israeli historian and "socialist activist."  When I came back from Vietnam, I could not believe how College Professors taught "from the view of an Ideal World" to impressionable students.





P F Tinmore said:


> I am a Vietnam Vet. I still don't know why I was there. Perhaps Smedley Butler could give us a clue. Or perhaps Susan Abulhawa.


* (COMMENT)*

People of different periods in history usually have different perspectives on an event in their time, as do modern historians have.  Veterans of the Wounded Knee engagement told a very different story at the time, from how contemporary historians view the "massacre" today.  Vietnam _(The 10,000 Day War)_ has almost as many different perspectives as there are veterans.  And having been to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, I can see even more varying perspectives on US Policy that shaped the conflicts.

One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support.  And that is a very different story in and by itself.

MG Butler, USMC, certainly has a very valid political perspective of war than do those that totally divorced themselves from the politics.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support. And that is a very different story in and by itself.


One thing I have learned experiencing a lifetime of war is that war is a euphemism for armed robbery.

The hundred year war against the Palestinians is a crime of armed robbery.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support. And that is a very different story in and by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have learned experiencing a lifetime of war is that war is a euphemism for armed robbery.
> 
> The hundred year war against the Palestinians is a crime of armed robbery.
Click to expand...

What war?

Link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support. And that is a very different story in and by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have learned experiencing a lifetime of war is that war is a euphemism for armed robbery.
> 
> The hundred year war against the Palestinians is a crime of armed robbery.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you’re talking about. You know nothing about the conflict , you post. I thing but propaganda videos and every single one of your lies is dismantled. Pathetic propagandist doesn’t even begin to describe you..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support. And that is a very different story in and by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have learned experiencing a lifetime of war is that war is a euphemism for armed robbery.
> 
> The hundred year war against the Palestinians is a crime of armed robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you’re talking about. You know nothing about the conflict , you post. I thing but propaganda videos and every single one of your lies is dismantled. Pathetic propagandist doesn’t even begin to describe you..
Click to expand...




toastman said:


> You have no idea what you’re talking about. You know nothing about the conflict ,


IOW, my posts do not match Israel's bullshit propaganda.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is common to every war, is the profit to the commercial industry in support. And that is a very different story in and by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have learned experiencing a lifetime of war is that war is a euphemism for armed robbery.
> 
> The hundred year war against the Palestinians is a crime of armed robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you’re talking about. You know nothing about the conflict , you post. I thing but propaganda videos and every single one of your lies is dismantled. Pathetic propagandist doesn’t even begin to describe you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you’re talking about. You know nothing about the conflict ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, my posts do not match Israel's bullshit propaganda.
Click to expand...

Your Pom Pom flailing for Islamic terrorist propaganda is a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Leader of Palestinian Militant Faction: Palestinians Taught People of the Gulf How to Read and Write


The Palis also invented canned tuna.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Mapping Palestine: Decolonizing Spatial Practices*


----------



## Hollie

Tips for Terror on Hamas TV: Security Precautions for Attacks with "Many Dead Soldiers and Settlers"


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> *Mapping Palestine: Decolonizing Spatial Practices*





			https://palopenmaps.org/view


----------



## Hollie

Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan Honors Female Terrorists, Suicide Bombers on International Women's Day


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *I am glad that they are at least dumb enough to Identify themselves as positive supports of terrorism.



Hollie said:


> Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan Honors Female Terrorists, Suicide Bombers on International Women's Day


*(COMMENT)*

At on time, spontaneous declarations like this made me wonder just how stupid these people are.  But they are rather proud to be among the criminal numbers that promote and incite violence.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *I am glad that they are at least dumb enough to Identify themselves as positive supports of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan Honors Female Terrorists, Suicide Bombers on International Women's Day
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At on time, spontaneous declarations like this made me wonder just how stupid these people are.  But they are rather proud to be among the criminal numbers that promote and incite violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?


*(COMMENT)*

Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.  

I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:

*✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​ 
*(YOUR RESPONSE)*

Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:

_*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
*S/RES/1624 (2005)*

1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.


Defending yourself from settler colonialism and occupation is not discrimination.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourself from settler colonialism and occupation is not discrimination.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Your usual, tired slogans. You have a catalog of them as Microsoft Word documents, right?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
Click to expand...

What Israeli terrorism?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * Every single time I make an accusation, I support it by citing the exact law they are violating, right down to the paragraph.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?


*(COMMENT)*

When YOU make an accusation, you don't give any specifics at all.  One would think your complaint is unjustified and frivolous.  I cannot count how many times I've asked you to be specific.  _*[**Who, What, Where, When, and Why *_*(the 5 basic interrogatives)*_* → just give me a couple with the law so I may respond to it exactly.**]*_

If you cannot do that, you cannot make the claim.  I'm not drawing a line in the sand here.  If you can give a couple of the interrogatives and the law you claim is being violated, then let's do so.  Being a bit vague is not the same as being unanswerable.

*Suppressed Evidence*​​Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant​is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when​the information counts against one’s own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not​mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises. The fallacy​is a kind of Fallacy of Selective Attention.​​


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Every single time I make an accusation, I support it by citing the exact law they are violating, right down to the paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When YOU make an accusation, you don't give any specifics at all.  One would think your complaint is unjustified and frivolous.  I cannot count how many times I've asked you to be specific. _*[**Who, What, Where, When, and Why *_*(the 5 basic interrogatives)*_* → just give me a couple with the law so I may respond to it exactly.**]*_
> 
> If you cannot do that, you cannot make the claim.  I'm not drawing a line in the sand here.  If you can give a couple of the interrogatives and the law you claim is being violated, then let's do so.  Being a bit vague is not the same as being unanswerable.
> 
> *Suppressed Evidence*​​Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant​is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when​the information counts against one’s own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not​mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises. The fallacy​is a kind of Fallacy of Selective Attention.​​
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

*Selective Attention​*

Improperly focusing attention on certain things and ignoring others.​
Exactly what I said. Why don't you address that?


----------



## Hollie

Interesting idea suggested by the insular Islamic terrorist psychopaths; bleeding for the purpose of producing sacrificial islamo-bots.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *I am glad that they are at least dumb enough to Identify themselves as positive supports of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan Honors Female Terrorists, Suicide Bombers on International Women's Day
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At on time, spontaneous declarations like this made me wonder just how stupid these people are.  But they are rather proud to be among the criminal numbers that promote and incite violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
Click to expand...


Look in the mirror...
all it takes is an asset like you to respond.
And at most its our enemies who court you folks.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
Click to expand...


And yet in every opportunity to define_ terrorism_ you refrain to mere ethnic definitions,
making any such evaluations of "more" or "less" essentially invalid.

Do you realize Arabs literally execute gays and dissidents on main city squares?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourself from settler colonialism and occupation is not discrimination.
Click to expand...


Does that excuse incitement to ethno-religious hatred?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * In this case, the "Selective Attention" is the case wherein the Hostile Arab Palestinians ignore the Fundamental Concept:  “Nothing can justify terrorism → ever,”



P F Tinmore said:


> Improperly focusing attention on certain things and ignoring others.
> Exactly what I said. Why don't you address that?


*(COMMENT)*

No matter what the cause the Arab Palestinians may claim, it cannot violate this simple proscription: “Nothing can justify terrorism → ever,” This principle forms the underpinning of *the set of 19 Counter-terrorism Conventions*, the *United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy* (A/RES/64/297), and the *Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism* (A/70/674), that is interlaced within international law AND that cannot be set aside because the Arab Palestinians believe their needs are higher than the international cause for peace.

Hostile Arab Palestinians like Rihab Kanaan, who honor Terrorists that engaged in Premeditated targeting and murder represent the very definition of a social community that collectively demonstrates a lack of sound moral judgment, where much of the population show signs of chronic abnormal or violent social behavior.   Arab Palestinians like Rihab Kanaan exhibit little or no remorse, lacking empathy, with the compulsion to openly advocate the intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, not taking direct part in hostilities.

What may be even worse is the fact that the Arab Palestinians like Rihab Kanaan, as a part of a systematic effort, locate terrorist activities inside Densely Populated Areas so as to create the operational dilemma as to whether or not the Israeli Defense Force should respond.  Similarly, psychotic behaviors. like that of the Arab Palestinian Rihab Kanaan. purposely hold civilian persons in the vicinity of terrorists which are likely to be targeted by the Israeli Defense Force.

Yes, there is a "Selective Attention" on the part of the Arab Palestinians to avoid addressing these issues.




Most Respectfully,
R


​​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No matter what the cause the Arab Palestinians may claim, it cannot violate this simple proscription: “Nothing can justify terrorism → ever,”


Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands. But if a few Israeli settlers bite the dust, it is terrorism.

It is part of Israel's BS terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * There are two problems (Fallacies in Logic) with this response.



RoccoR said:


> No matter what the cause the Arab Palestinians may claim, it cannot violate this simple proscription: “Nothing can justify terrorism → ever,”





P F Tinmore said:


> Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands. But if a few Israeli settlers bite the dust, it is terrorism.
> 
> It is part of Israel's BS terrorist propaganda campaign.


*(COMMENT)*

◈  Altering the discussion to provide an unresponsive answer.
✦  We were discussing how the Arab Palestinian Rihab Kanaan advocated suicide bombing, prohibited by Counter-terrorism protocols.​✦  The actions, "Right" or "Wrong" by Israeli Settlers was not a true component.​The City of Hebron was one of the first areas that Israeli Settlers migrated (1967/1968).  The PLO declared Independence in 1988.​
◈  Two "Wrongs" don't Make a "Right"
✦  No matter what the Israelis might have done, that the Arab Palestinians consider a "Wrong," it does not justify _(as "Right")_ Arab Palestinian terrorist acts prohibited by Domestic Law, International Humanitarians Law, or International Convention.​✦  Organizations like HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement; including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’), Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade’, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are recognized as Terrorist Organizations throughout Europe.​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Organizations like HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement; including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’), Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade’, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are recognized as Terrorist Organizations throughout Europe.


While they support Israel's crimes.

They have no credibility.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands.




Acts of Islamic terrorism carry consequences.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts of Islamic terrorism carry consequences.
Click to expand...

More of Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.

Israel is the aggressor.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts of Islamic terrorism carry consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.
> 
> Israel is the aggressor.
Click to expand...

More of your silly slogans.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


More lies from Israel's premier propaganda organization.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lies from Israel's premier propaganda organization.
Click to expand...

Hurt feelings?


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Linda Sarsour - WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE BYSTANDERS*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lies from Israel's premier propaganda organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

No. Their lies don't hurt me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Israel has created quite a problem for itself.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Saudi Writer: Palestine Was Never an Independent State; The Palestinian Cause Is an Illusion


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lies from Israel's premier propaganda organization.
Click to expand...

Another of your usual slogans.

What lies?

link?


----------



## Hollie

Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream


Are you all...like...in third grade?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all...like...in third grade?
Click to expand...

Are you all...like...apologists for Islamic terrorists


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * Time-out... 



Hollie said:


> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream





P F Tinmore said:


> Are you all...like...in third grade?


*(COMMENT)*

Just what in the hell do you think a terrorist is?

Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?
​


​​Are you saying that the Arab Palestinians have not violated these prohibited acts?

Article 1  *EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism  *​​Terrorist offences and fundamental rights and principles​​1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of:​​- seriously intimidating a population, or​​- unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or​​- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,​​shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:​​(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;​​(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;​​(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;​​(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;​​(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​​(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;​​(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).​
Are you trying to say that None of the Arab Palestinians were fitting the description just laid-out?

Just what the hell are you implying.  Are you trying to justify terrorist acts?  Are you changing the definition of terrorist acts?   Be clear and concise that that everyone understands what you mean when you call these accusations of Arab Palestinian Terrorism "Childish."

The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?

If you don't answer the question directly, THEN I can only assume that you concede that the Arab Palestinians have maintained a terrorist campaign since the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Time-out...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all...like...in third grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just what in the hell do you think a terrorist is?
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?
> ​View attachment 403987​​​Are you saying that the Arab Palestinians have not violated these prohibited acts?
> 
> Article 1  *EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism  *​​Terrorist offences and fundamental rights and principles​​1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of:​​- seriously intimidating a population, or​​- unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or​​- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,​​shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:​​(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;​​(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;​​(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;​​(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;​​(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​​(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;​​(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).​
> Are you trying to say that None of the Arab Palestinians were fitting the description just laid-out?
> 
> Just what the hell are you implying.  Are you trying to justify terrorist acts?  Are you changing the definition of terrorist acts?   Be clear and concise that that everyone understands what you mean when you call these accusations of Arab Palestinian Terrorism "Childish."
> 
> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?
> 
> If you don't answer the question directly, THEN I can only assume that you concede that the Arab Palestinians have maintained a terrorist campaign since the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Linda Sarsour has never as much as picked up a rock.

Piddlyshit compared to Israel's crimes. And besides, Palestinian actions are in self defense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Time-out...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all...like...in third grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just what in the hell do you think a terrorist is?
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?
> ​View attachment 403987​​​Are you saying that the Arab Palestinians have not violated these prohibited acts?
> 
> Article 1  *EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism  *​​Terrorist offences and fundamental rights and principles​​1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of:​​- seriously intimidating a population, or​​- unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or​​- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,​​shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:​​(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;​​(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;​​(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;​​(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;​​(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​​(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;​​(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).​
> Are you trying to say that None of the Arab Palestinians were fitting the description just laid-out?
> 
> Just what the hell are you implying.  Are you trying to justify terrorist acts?  Are you changing the definition of terrorist acts?   Be clear and concise that that everyone understands what you mean when you call these accusations of Arab Palestinian Terrorism "Childish."
> 
> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?
> 
> If you don't answer the question directly, THEN I can only assume that you concede that the Arab Palestinians have maintained a terrorist campaign since the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are there any of these that Israel does not do?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Time-out...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour is a Terrorists Dream
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all...like...in third grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just what in the hell do you think a terrorist is?
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?
> ​View attachment 403987​​​Are you saying that the Arab Palestinians have not violated these prohibited acts?
> 
> Article 1  *EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism  *​​Terrorist offences and fundamental rights and principles​​1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of:​​- seriously intimidating a population, or​​- unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or​​- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,​​shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:​​(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;​​(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;​​(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;​​(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;​​(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​​(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;​​(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;​​(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).​
> Are you trying to say that None of the Arab Palestinians were fitting the description just laid-out?
> 
> Just what the hell are you implying.  Are you trying to justify terrorist acts?  Are you changing the definition of terrorist acts?   Be clear and concise that that everyone understands what you mean when you call these accusations of Arab Palestinian Terrorism "Childish."
> 
> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?
> 
> If you don't answer the question directly, THEN I can only assume that you concede that the Arab Palestinians have maintained a terrorist campaign since the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linda Sarsour has never as much as picked up a rock.
> 
> Piddlyshit compared to Israel's crimes. And besides, Palestinian actions are in self defense.
Click to expand...

Pali acts of Islamic terrorism are not in self defense.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * You didn't answer the question.




RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?





P F Tinmore said:


> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?


*(COMMENT)*

This is fallacious in that the violent and terrorist acts of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot (realistically) be justified by injecting a counter-claim that the Israelis do it too...  That is demonstrating a lack of moral relativism on the part of the HoAP.   HoAP violence is wrong on three distinct levels.

Criminal Law:​​◈  Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.​​Human Rights Law:​​◈  ARTICLE 19 CCPR Policy on Prohibition to Incitement under Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).pdf​​Humanitarian Law:​​◈  Under Article 68 • Fourth Geneva Convention → the HoAP can be punished for any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
This is not to exclude the violations of Incitement to violence - or - the Customary Law on HoAP conducting operations in the Proximity to civilians.  And it is certainly not meant to exclude attempts to convince fellow HoAP constituents that such violence is legal as Self-Defense Measures, or that the specific targeting against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place is not a violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.  There is no question that the HoAP has a policy with respect to war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes (Article 8(1) • War Crimes • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).


> "Martyr Dalal Mughrabi is a *symbol of legitimate human struggle* against injustice, oppression, and the occupation that has committed crimes against the Palestinian people throughout its *71 years. The use of Dalal's name in the summer camps of [Fatah's] Shabiba Student (sic., High School) Movement is nothing but commemoration of a situation of struggle*,* which has been waged by our Palestinian people* that was uprooted from its land and homeland as a result of the crimes, oppression, and massacres that the Zionist gangs committed against it. Therefore, *Dalal Mughrabi's [actions] are a natural human expression that all human laws guarantee for the oppressed peoples that are struggling to be redeemed from injustice and occupation*."
> Official Fatah Facebook page, July 16, 2019
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Linda Sarsour has never as much as picked up a rock.
> 
> Piddlyshit compared to Israel's crimes. And besides, Palestinian actions are in self defense.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no legitimacy behind the claim of self-defense.  Israel did not assume effective control of any Palestinian Territory.  It established the State of Israel under self-determination pursuant to recommendations by the UN.  It assumed control of the West Bank after it was abandoned by the Jordanians and in the absence of a separate Arab Palestinian Government.  It attempts to operate Area "C" pursuant to the agreement _(full civil and security control)_ under the Oslo Accords. 

What moral high ground does the HoAP claim that they have not contaminated by drawing first blood?

*Go back* to *Posting #502* and answer the questions...




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is fallacious in that the violent and terrorist acts of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot (realistically) be justified by injecting a counter-claim that the Israelis do it too...  That is demonstrating a lack of moral relativism on the part of the HoAP.   HoAP violence is wrong on three distinct levels.
> 
> Criminal Law:​​◈  Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.​​Human Rights Law:​​◈  ARTICLE 19 CCPR Policy on Prohibition to Incitement under Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).pdf​​Humanitarian Law:​​◈  Under Article 68 • Fourth Geneva Convention → the HoAP can be punished for any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> This is not to exclude the violations of Incitement to violence - or - the Customary Law on HoAP conducting operations in the Proximity to civilians.  And it is certainly not meant to exclude attempts to convince fellow HoAP constituents that such violence is legal as Self-Defense Measures, or that the specific targeting against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place is not a violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.  There is no question that the HoAP has a policy with respect to war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes (Article 8(1) • War Crimes • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Martyr Dalal Mughrabi is a *symbol of legitimate human struggle* against injustice, oppression, and the occupation that has committed crimes against the Palestinian people throughout its *71 years. The use of Dalal's name in the summer camps of [Fatah's] Shabiba Student (sic., High School) Movement is nothing but commemoration of a situation of struggle*,* which has been waged by our Palestinian people* that was uprooted from its land and homeland as a result of the crimes, oppression, and massacres that the Zionist gangs committed against it. Therefore, *Dalal Mughrabi's [actions] are a natural human expression that all human laws guarantee for the oppressed peoples that are struggling to be redeemed from injustice and occupation*."
> Official Fatah Facebook page, July 16, 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour has never as much as picked up a rock.
> 
> Piddlyshit compared to Israel's crimes. And besides, Palestinian actions are in self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no legitimacy behind the claim of self-defense.  Israel did not assume effective control of any Palestinian Territory.  It established the State of Israel under self-determination pursuant to recommendations by the UN.  It assumed control of the West Bank after it was abandoned by the Jordanians and in the absence of a separate Arab Palestinian Government.  It attempts to operate Area "C" pursuant to the agreement _(full civil and security control)_ under the Oslo Accords.
> 
> What moral high ground does the HoAP claim that they have not contaminated by drawing first blood?
> 
> *Go back* to *Posting #502* and answer the questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Not only does Israel do it too, it does it more and first.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians either violated International Law - or - they have not...  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is fallacious in that the violent and terrorist acts of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot (realistically) be justified by injecting a counter-claim that the Israelis do it too...  That is demonstrating a lack of moral relativism on the part of the HoAP.   HoAP violence is wrong on three distinct levels.
> 
> Criminal Law:​​◈  Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.​​Human Rights Law:​​◈  ARTICLE 19 CCPR Policy on Prohibition to Incitement under Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).pdf​​Humanitarian Law:​​◈  Under Article 68 • Fourth Geneva Convention → the HoAP can be punished for any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> This is not to exclude the violations of Incitement to violence - or - the Customary Law on HoAP conducting operations in the Proximity to civilians.  And it is certainly not meant to exclude attempts to convince fellow HoAP constituents that such violence is legal as Self-Defense Measures, or that the specific targeting against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place is not a violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.  There is no question that the HoAP has a policy with respect to war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes (Article 8(1) • War Crimes • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Martyr Dalal Mughrabi is a *symbol of legitimate human struggle* against injustice, oppression, and the occupation that has committed crimes against the Palestinian people throughout its *71 years. The use of Dalal's name in the summer camps of [Fatah's] Shabiba Student (sic., High School) Movement is nothing but commemoration of a situation of struggle*,* which has been waged by our Palestinian people* that was uprooted from its land and homeland as a result of the crimes, oppression, and massacres that the Zionist gangs committed against it. Therefore, *Dalal Mughrabi's [actions] are a natural human expression that all human laws guarantee for the oppressed peoples that are struggling to be redeemed from injustice and occupation*."
> Official Fatah Facebook page, July 16, 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour has never as much as picked up a rock.
> 
> Piddlyshit compared to Israel's crimes. And besides, Palestinian actions are in self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no legitimacy behind the claim of self-defense.  Israel did not assume effective control of any Palestinian Territory.  It established the State of Israel under self-determination pursuant to recommendations by the UN.  It assumed control of the West Bank after it was abandoned by the Jordanians and in the absence of a separate Arab Palestinian Government.  It attempts to operate Area "C" pursuant to the agreement _(full civil and security control)_ under the Oslo Accords.
> 
> What moral high ground does the HoAP claim that they have not contaminated by drawing first blood?
> 
> *Go back* to *Posting #502* and answer the questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only does Israel do it too, it does it more and first.
Click to expand...

Another of your rants that 12 year olds dismiss as silly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.


By killing people and stealing their land.

You are a hoot.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * There you go again! You're making undefined allegations. And the allegations seem ambiguous.



RoccoR said:


> ◈ Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.





P F Tinmore said:


> By killing people and stealing their land.
> 
> You are a hoot.


*(QUESTIONS)*

◈  "Killing People" is one allegation.

◈  "Stealing Land" is a second allegation.

◈  "Killing People" to "steal" the victim's land is a compound allegation.

◈  By "stealing" - did you mean usurping sovereignty?

◈  By "stealing" - did you mean personal property?

◈  By "Killing" - did you mean a death involving the theft of personal property.

◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of Non-International Armed Conflict under international humanitarian law → 

a) common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949;​​b) Article 1 of Additional Protocol II:​
◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of an international armed conflict engagement between two or more States (ie Israel 'vs' Palestine). 

◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of in violations of Customary  Law:

a)  Initiating hostile operations within or near densely populated areas.​​b)  Failure to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Initiated hostile operations.​
*(COMMENT)*

You make these accusations, so broad and nebulous, that it becomes an _ad Hoministic fallacy_ rather than a statement of some identifiable fact, pattern, or event. Your allegation is _without substance or foundation_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * There you go again! You're making undefined allegations. And the allegations seem ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By killing people and stealing their land.
> 
> You are a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ◈  "Killing People" is one allegation.
> 
> ◈  "Stealing Land" is a second allegation.
> 
> ◈  "Killing People" to "steal" the victim's land is a compound allegation.
> 
> ◈  By "stealing" - did you mean usurping sovereignty?
> 
> ◈  By "stealing" - did you mean personal property?
> 
> ◈  By "Killing" - did you mean a death involving the theft of personal property.
> 
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of Non-International Armed Conflict under international humanitarian law →
> 
> a) common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949;​​b) Article 1 of Additional Protocol II:​
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of an international armed conflict engagement between two or more States (ie Israel 'vs' Palestine).
> 
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of in violations of Customary  Law:
> 
> a)  Initiating hostile operations within or near densely populated areas.​​b)  Failure to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Initiated hostile operations.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You make these accusations, so broad and nebulous, that it becomes an _ad Hoministic fallacy_ rather than a statement of some identifiable fact, pattern, or event. Your allegation is _without substance or foundation_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

 Oh geese.

You still don't know how settler colonialism works.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * There you go again! You're making undefined allegations. And the allegations seem ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Interfering with the Occupying Powers duty to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety pursuant to Article 43 Law of Land Warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By killing people and stealing their land.
> 
> You are a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ◈  "Killing People" is one allegation.
> 
> ◈  "Stealing Land" is a second allegation.
> 
> ◈  "Killing People" to "steal" the victim's land is a compound allegation.
> 
> ◈  By "stealing" - did you mean usurping sovereignty?
> 
> ◈  By "stealing" - did you mean personal property?
> 
> ◈  By "Killing" - did you mean a death involving the theft of personal property.
> 
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of Non-International Armed Conflict under international humanitarian law →
> 
> a) common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949;​​b) Article 1 of Additional Protocol II:​
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of an international armed conflict engagement between two or more States (ie Israel 'vs' Palestine).
> 
> ◈  By "killing" - did you mean a death as a consequence of in violations of Customary  Law:
> 
> a)  Initiating hostile operations within or near densely populated areas.​​b)  Failure to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Initiated hostile operations.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You make these accusations, so broad and nebulous, that it becomes an _ad Hoministic fallacy_ rather than a statement of some identifiable fact, pattern, or event. Your allegation is _without substance or foundation_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh geese.
> 
> You still don't know how settler colonialism works.
Click to expand...

Actually, it‘s defined clearly by the history of the Arab-Moslem armies which spilled out of the peninsula after the death of your warlord “prophet”.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * You are one to talk.



P F Tinmore said:


> Oh geese.
> 
> You still don't know how settler colonialism works.



*(COMMENT)*

When you see the UN Proponent Agency for Decolonialization (C-24) (_A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries_) list any place in the Middle East (anyplace at all) as subject to decolonization policy (A/RES/15/1514) -* you be sure to let me know*. Until then, don't pass yourself off as an authority on the subject. It only further penalizes your credibility.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You are one to talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geese.
> 
> You still don't know how settler colonialism works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you see the UN Proponent Agency for Decolonialization (C-24) (_A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries_) list any place in the Middle East (anyplace at all) as subject to decolonization policy (A/RES/15/1514) -* you be sure to let me know*. Until then, don't pass yourself off as an authority on the subject. It only further penalizes your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

They didn't even know in 1960. It takes time to develop a history. Particularly when there is a machine out there peddling deceit 24/7.

Settler colonialism is the proper term. It matches the documented history and the facts on the ground.

*Rachel Busbridge on Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You are one to talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geese.
> 
> You still don't know how settler colonialism works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you see the UN Proponent Agency for Decolonialization (C-24) (_A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries_) list any place in the Middle East (anyplace at all) as subject to decolonization policy (A/RES/15/1514) -* you be sure to let me know*. Until then, don't pass yourself off as an authority on the subject. It only further penalizes your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't even know in 1960. It takes time to develop a history. Particularly when there is a machine out there peddling deceit 24/7.
> 
> Settler colonialism is the proper term. It matches the documented history and the facts on the ground.
> 
> *Rachel Busbridge on Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’*
Click to expand...

Correct. Islamic settler colonialism matches the history of the Islamic occupation of the land area of Palestine.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Settler colonialism, Israel, Palestine and white supremacy*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*In Defense of Solidarity: Palestine on Campus*


----------



## Hollie

Israel - Netanyahu determined to battle terrorism


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Truth and Reconciliation in Israel/Palestine, OFIP Webinar*


----------



## Hollie

Culture of Hate - the Palestinian Incitement Kills


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
Click to expand...

Because when Israel attacks the Palestinians, it is not for the purpose of causing terror. The same cannot he said for the Palestinians. Their sole purpose of attacking Israel and Israelis is to cause terror.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what the cause the Arab Palestinians may claim, it cannot violate this simple proscription: “Nothing can justify terrorism → ever,”
> 
> 
> 
> Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands. But if a few Israeli settlers bite the dust, it is terrorism.
> 
> It is part of Israel's BS terrorist propaganda campaign.
Click to expand...

Amount of dead has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Intention of the attack is what does.
Now, you mentioned in an earlier post that defending against settler colonialism is not terrorism.
Please explain to me how stabbing Israelis IN ISRAEL, as well as launching rockets INTO Israel, is ‘defending’ yourself against anything .....


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*


Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
Click to expand...

Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
Click to expand...

It seems you're desperate to give credibility to a failed Islamic terrorist front group.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?



P F Tinmore said:


> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*





toastman said:


> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.





P F Tinmore said:


> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?


*(COMMENT)*

Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.

I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.
> 
> I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You missed my video.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because when Israel attacks the Palestinians, it is not for the purpose of causing terror. The same cannot he said for the Palestinians. Their sole purpose of attacking Israel and Israelis is to cause terror.
Click to expand...

You played the terrorist card.

Good boy.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is well known that your standard tactic invovles a strategic deception. When YOUR answer doesn’t really respond to the topic and attacks the presenter instead of the content of the issue under examination it becomes a fallacy. In this case, you accuse ME of presenting (pimping) inaccurate information, intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that Arab Palestinian was not actively endorsing, advocating for, and supporting the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> I am not pimping Israeli Propaganda, I am repeating one of the 19 Counter-terrorism International Legal Conventions that the Arab Palestinians put themselves above when they perform these acts.  Specifically in this case:
> 
> *✦  1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*​
> *(YOUR RESPONSE)*
> 
> Is an attempt to shield the fact that the Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan,  advocactes hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.  This is prohibited by international law [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and S/RES/1624 (2005)]:
> 
> _*Article 20 CCPR (1966)*_
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> *S/RES/1624 (2005)*
> 
> 1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  andappropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​​(a)  Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​​(b)  Prevent such conduct;​​(c)  Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credibleand relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have beenguilty of such conduct;​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> 
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because when Israel attacks the Palestinians, it is not for the purpose of causing terror. The same cannot he said for the Palestinians. Their sole purpose of attacking Israel and Israelis is to cause terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> 
> Good boy.
Click to expand...

I gave the definition of terrorism. It’s not my fault you can’t ever accept facts.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

*BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?





P F Tinmore said:


> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.


*(COMMENT)*

Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.  
....................................................................................*-- OR --*
Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.


RoccoR said:


> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).


Examples on request.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.
> 
> I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed my video.
Click to expand...


What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple copies of The same YouTube video?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.
> 
> I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed my video.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple copies of The same YouTube video?
Click to expand...

Zionists are slow learners.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.

Don't drop the ball in this discussion.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.
> 
> I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed my video.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple copies of The same YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionists are slow learners.
Click to expand...


Another of your usual cut and paste slogans.

It’s just comical that you spam the thread you created with multiple copies of the same YouTube videos and you don’t understand what you’re copying and pasting.


----------



## toastman

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just → where did you get the impression that Israel was desperate about any aspect of the Israeli - Palestinian dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Andrew Kadi: The Palestinian BDS Campaign: What It Is, How It Is Growing,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing??? HAHAHAHAH ! Thanks for the laugh Tinmore... BDS has been one big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel is desperate to shut it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has nothing to fear from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.  No matter what the politics are, commerce operates on a utilitarian principle _(what is in the best interest of the corporate profits and shareholder dividends)_.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) actually pose a threat, corporations _(which pay taxes)_ influence the government actions and responses. The BDS Movement does not influence any government on a support basis for influence.
> 
> I am very much interested in any list you might have of Nations that currently have any sanctions at all on Israel...  Can you give me such a list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed my video.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple copies of The same YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another of your usual cut and paste slogans.
> 
> It’s just comical that you spam the thread you created with multiple copies of the same YouTube videos and you don’t understand what you’re copying and pasting.
Click to expand...

He gets his ass handed to him by Rocco, then, claims that Rocco is ducking his questions . Tinmore simply cannot admit that 99.9% of his posts are lies and propaganda. Ah well, his problem, not mine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
Click to expand...

In which post did you answer the question ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
Click to expand...

This one.


			Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
		


And nobody has refuted any of those items.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
Click to expand...

Everything you said has been refuted.
I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Your answer is vague, too broad, and without a specific situation to refute.



P F Tinmore said:


> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.





toastman said:


> In which post did you answer the question ?





P F Tinmore said:


> This one.
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.


*(SHORT BACKGROUND)*

In *Posting #535*, I asked the question related to the description and question I asked in *Posting #502*. Your answer was to merely echo my description and question?  It gave no event or example.  You did NOT answer the question.  

(Ω)   Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?​
In *Posting #508* → I again asked you to address the question Posting $502.


In *Post #512* → I again tried to simplify your allegations.

SO*!*

In Posting #535 → I asked you for clarification on the basis of your allegations against Israel that you used as an answer:

Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.  ​....................................................................................*-- OR --*
Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism" so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...​​*(COMMENT)*

You cannot give me an example.  So I will give you examples:

◈✦  *Palestinians Fire Incendiary Balloons Towards Israel*​A Palestinian prepares to launch inflated condoms attached with an incendiary device to be directed and flown towards Israel, near Rafah along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel on August 21, 2020. SAID KHATIB / AFP​*Violation of: * 1997 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST CONVENTION:  The use of an explosive or* incendiary weapon or device* that is designed,or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage;​​◈✦  *Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian militants fire rockets*​The Israeli military said Friday it launched overnight airstrikes in the Gaza Strip after Palestinian militants fired two rockets, with no reports of casualties or major damage on either side.​​The military said fighter jets and other aircraft struck a weapons manufacturing site and “underground infrastructure” belonging to the Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza.​Associated Press_•_October 23, 2020​*Violation of:*  Customary Law Rule #11:  Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.​​◈✦ *Palestinians demand attacker's body on anniversary of terror attack*​Clashes broke out in the Palestinian neighborhood of Isawiya in north Jerusalem throughout Friday night between Palestinian locals and police, as well as Border Police, according to a report by Ynet.​The clashes broke out over the four year anniversary of the terrorist attack in Jerusalem's Ammunition Hill, when Misbah Abu Sbeih carried out a drive-by shooting and killed two Israelis.​Jerusalem Post By TAMAR BEERI•October 10, 2020​*Punishable Under:*  Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention:  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈✦ *Israel uncovers tunnel from Gaza, military says holds Hamas responsible*​Israel discovered a new cross-border tunnel from the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that its military said extended “dozens of metres underground” and into southern Israel.​TEL AVIV (Reuters)•October 20, 2020​Violation of:  Article 2(4) UN Charter:  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​​These are all recent (this month) of four (4) types of violations of different International Law origins.  Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_.
​


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,


toastman said:


> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?





P F Tinmore said:


> Yes.


*(COMMENT)*

OK*!*  Let's suppose that is true.  What are those borders_*?*_

*Reference:*  Page 60, Book ONE, Chapter II Law of Treaties, 
INTERNATIONAL LAW HANDBOOK • COLLECTION OF INSTRUMENTS
Copyright © United Nations, 2017
Article 11. Boundary regimes​A succession of States does not as such affect:
(a) a boundary established by a treaty; or​(b) obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary.​
Israel has Treaties that specifically address Permanent International Boundaries.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Your answer is vague, too broad, and without a specific situation to refute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This one.
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SHORT BACKGROUND)*
> 
> In *Posting #535*, I asked the question related to the description and question I asked in *Posting #502*. Your answer was to merely echo my description and question?  It gave no event or example.  You did NOT answer the question.
> 
> (Ω)   Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?​
> In *Posting #508* → I again asked you to address the question Posting $502.
> 
> 
> In *Post #512* → I again tried to simplify your allegations.
> 
> SO*!*
> 
> In Posting #535 → I asked you for clarification on the basis of your allegations against Israel that you used as an answer:
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.  ​....................................................................................*-- OR --*​Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism" so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...​​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> You cannot give me an example.  So I will give you examples:
> 
> ◈✦  *Palestinians Fire Incendiary Balloons Towards Israel*​A Palestinian prepares to launch inflated condoms attached with an incendiary device to be directed and flown towards Israel, near Rafah along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel on August 21, 2020. SAID KHATIB / AFP​*Violation of: * 1997 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST CONVENTION:  The use of an explosive or* incendiary weapon or device* that is designed,or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage;​​◈✦  *Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian militants fire rockets*​The Israeli military said Friday it launched overnight airstrikes in the Gaza Strip after Palestinian militants fired two rockets, with no reports of casualties or major damage on either side.​​The military said fighter jets and other aircraft struck a weapons manufacturing site and “underground infrastructure” belonging to the Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza.​Associated Press_•_October 23, 2020​*Violation of:*  Customary Law Rule #11:  Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.​​◈✦ *Palestinians demand attacker's body on anniversary of terror attack*​Clashes broke out in the Palestinian neighborhood of Isawiya in north Jerusalem throughout Friday night between Palestinian locals and police, as well as Border Police, according to a report by Ynet.​The clashes broke out over the four year anniversary of the terrorist attack in Jerusalem's Ammunition Hill, when Misbah Abu Sbeih carried out a drive-by shooting and killed two Israelis.​Jerusalem Post By TAMAR BEERI•October 10, 2020​*Punishable Under:*  Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention:  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈✦ *Israel uncovers tunnel from Gaza, military says holds Hamas responsible*​Israel discovered a new cross-border tunnel from the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that its military said extended “dozens of metres underground” and into southern Israel.​TEL AVIV (Reuters)•October 20, 2020​Violation of:  Article 2(4) UN Charter:  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​​These are all recent (this month) of four (4) types of violations of different International Law origins.  Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_.
> ​
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> (Ω) Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?


We are discussing Israel's terrorism. You are deflecting.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel has Treaties that specifically address Permanent International Boundaries.


Brokered by the US...you know...the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.

Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: If anyone is changing the question, it is not me.

*(COMMENT)*

If you go back to Post #500, you'll see the response was originally an answer to your "Are you all...like...in third grade?" comeback to the Palestinians Issue of terrorism.  It is not a matter of anyone calling the Arab Palestinian terrorist.  It is about the Arab Palestinians being so proud to be terrorists.  

That is when you shifted the question when you said:

◈  In Posting #503, "Palestinian actions are in self-defense."​​◈  In Posting 504, "Are there any of these that Israel does not do?"​
So let's quit beating around the bush and get back to the shift you made in Posting #504 and answer the volley posed in *Posting #547*:

Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_?​
You were trying to defend your premise that "Isreal is the terrorist" and that "Arab Palestine is as innocent as the driven snow."  I gave you examples of what I believe are various violations committed within the last 60 days; and three of them, within the last two weeks.

*What is your response?  What act of terrorism can you point to committed by Israel within the last 60 days?*





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The US did not "give" any territory to Israel; legally, illegally, or otherwise.



RoccoR said:


> Israel has Treaties that specifically address Permanent International Boundaries.





P F Tinmore said:


> Brokered by the US...you know...the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.
> 
> Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel operates under its own self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians are actively working against Israel in its effort to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.  (Article 1, Chapter I, UN Charter)  And again, within the last 60 days, the Arab Palestinians have made every effort to destroy peace.



			
				Ruthie Blum / JNS.org said:
			
		

> An overwhelming majority of Israeli parliamentarians, including those in the opposition, voted on Thursday to ratify the US-brokered Abraham Accords. With 80 members of 120-seat Knesset in favor of the treaty with the United Arab Emirates and 27 in absentia, the remaining 13 lawmakers were unable to block the historic peace agreement that was approved unanimously by the Israeli Cabinet on October 12.
> SOURCE:  *The algemeiner October 21, 2020*





			
				GEO-NEWS said:
			
		

> A Palestinian man holds a crossed-out poster depicting Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa during a protest against Bahrain's move to normalize relations with Israel, in the central Gaza Strip.
> “We have to fight the virus of normalisation and block all its paths before it succeeds, to prevent it from spreading,” said Hamas official Maher al-Holy.
> SOURCE: *Palestinians protest against Bahrain-Israel normalisation*, September 12, 2020. REUTERS



The Arab Palestinians define themselves in → acts of breaches of the peace, and opposition to peaceful negotiations, and the principles that include Israel's right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  This is an example of how the Arab Palestinians actively oppose the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The US did not "give" any territory to Israel; legally, illegally, or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has Treaties that specifically address Permanent International Boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brokered by the US...you know...the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.
> 
> Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel operates under its own self-determination.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are actively working against Israel in its effort to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.  (Article 1, Chapter I, UN Charter)  And again, within the last 60 days, the Arab Palestinians have made every effort to destroy peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruthie Blum / JNS.org said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An overwhelming majority of Israeli parliamentarians, including those in the opposition, voted on Thursday to ratify the US-brokered Abraham Accords. With 80 members of 120-seat Knesset in favor of the treaty with the United Arab Emirates and 27 in absentia, the remaining 13 lawmakers were unable to block the historic peace agreement that was approved unanimously by the Israeli Cabinet on October 12.
> SOURCE:  *The algemeiner October 21, 2020*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GEO-NEWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Palestinian man holds a crossed-out poster depicting Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa during a protest against Bahrain's move to normalize relations with Israel, in the central Gaza Strip.
> “We have to fight the virus of normalisation and block all its paths before it succeeds, to prevent it from spreading,” said Hamas official Maher al-Holy.
> SOURCE: *Palestinians protest against Bahrain-Israel normalisation*, September 12, 2020. REUTERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians define themselves in → acts of breaches of the peace, and opposition to peaceful negotiations, and the principles that include Israel's right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  This is an example of how the Arab Palestinians actively oppose the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Sooooo many BS Israeli talking points.

BTW, you missed this.  "Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine."

You also have not addressed any of that list I quoted from your post.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_?


There are many right here.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Sooooo many BS Israeli talking points.


*(COMMENT)*

I have yet to see a List for what you call the "Israeli Talking Points."



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, you missed this.  "Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine."


*(COMMENT)*

No, I did not miss that at all.  It is not of any consequence.



P F Tinmore said:


> You also have not addressed any of that list I quoted from your post.


*(COMMENT)*

I have not seen any event that you applied these definition categories to.

I gave you four event specific examples.  What can you give me?  (You cannot..)




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_?
> 
> 
> 
> There are many right here.
Click to expand...

Your sidestepping and deflecting by dumping silly YouTube videos as opposed to actually trying to support your specious claims is embarrassing to everyone but you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_?
> 
> 
> 
> There are many right here.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sidestepping and deflecting by dumping silly YouTube videos as opposed to actually trying to support your specious claims is embarrassing to everyone but you.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Rocco's request.

Why is everyone ducking my post?


			Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_?
> 
> 
> 
> There are many right here.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sidestepping and deflecting by dumping silly YouTube videos as opposed to actually trying to support your specious claims is embarrassing to everyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
Click to expand...


I think the expectation was that you were just spamming the thread.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Responding to my Posting and answering the question are two separate things.



P F Tinmore said:


> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.


*(COMMENT)*

No one is ducking your posting.  You saw my *Posting #502*, actually copied my information, and repeated the definitions back to me.

Israel does not meet the definition of a terrorist organization.  (Not at all.)  



P F Tinmore said:


> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?


*(COMMENT)*

Israel does a number of these things in response to hostile activity initiated by Arab Palestinian organizations.  In any International Armed Conflict (IAC), any or all these actions may occur.  But that does not mean that Israel is one of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters performing "criminal acts" directed against the Arab Palestinian population, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.

I gave you a sample of four actual incidents _(within the last 60 days)_ in which different types of criminal activity were perpetrated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

You have not given one example _(within the last 60 days)_ of the Israelis violating any of the 19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions or any associated Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

You can't_*!!!*_

The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians "routinely and quite frequently" commit an offense which were solely intended to harm the Israeli Forces or citizenry, → serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.   The Hostile Arab Palestinians commit intentional offenses which were intended to cause mass casualties, → and with the intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Responding to my Posting and answering the question are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one is ducking your posting.  You saw my *Posting #502*, actually copied my information, and repeated the definitions back to me.
> 
> Israel does not meet the definition of a terrorist organization.  (Not at all.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel does a number of these things in response to hostile activity initiated by Arab Palestinian organizations.  In any International Armed Conflict (IAC), any or all these actions may occur.  But that does not mean that Israel is one of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters performing "criminal acts" directed against the Arab Palestinian population, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.
> 
> I gave you a sample of four actual incidents _(within the last 60 days)_ in which different types of criminal activity were perpetrated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> You have not given one example _(within the last 60 days)_ of the Israelis violating any of the 19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions or any associated Customary and International Humanitarian Law.
> 
> You can't_*!!!*_
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians "routinely and quite frequently" commit an offense which were solely intended to harm the Israeli Forces or citizenry, → serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.   The Hostile Arab Palestinians commit intentional offenses which were intended to cause mass casualties, → and with the intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

Nice duck though.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.


They did in 1972.

Nice duck.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Well I guess it is not so simple to demonstrate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are so innocent.



P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.


*(COMMENT*)

I'm talking about recent times.  

There is no instant replay.  The Arabs of Palestine have never really had any control over any aspect of the territory until the Oslo Accords.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Well I guess it is not so simple to demonstrate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are so innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT*)
> 
> I'm talking about recent times.
> 
> There is no instant replay.  The Arabs of Palestine have never really had any control over any aspect of the territory until the Oslo Accords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> They did in 1972.
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...

Stupid post of the day award!


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> They did in 1972.
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid post of the day award!
Click to expand...

Another emotional tirade and display of your hurt feelings.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.


*(COMMENT)*

We could argue about this all day.  It would come to nothing.  It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth.  But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD.  That is more than a Millenium after King David.  What importance does that have?  It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant. 

​


P F Tinmore said:


> 1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​​


​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing.  On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state."  ​​"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is the principle that each nation answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so."  With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​​​


P F Tinmore said:


> 2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​​


​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen.  And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​​◈  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)  Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  Customary and International Humanitarian Law​​Geneva Convention I​Geneva Convention II​Geneva Convention III​Geneva Convention IV​Additional Protocol I to GCIV​Additional Protocol II GCIV​Additional Protocol III ​Hague Convention 1907​
You are correct.  Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights."  But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others.  The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​​​


P F Tinmore said:


> 3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​​


​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​This is true in general.  But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.  In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​​◈  political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​◈  to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​◈  to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​◈  to being occupied by Jordan,​◈  to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​◈  to being abandon by Jordan,​◈  to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​
_(Ω)_

While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion.  In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).


Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We could argue about this all day.  It would come to nothing.  It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth.  But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD.  That is more than a Millenium after King David.  What importance does that have?  It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing.  On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state."  ​​"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is the principle that each nation answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so."  With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen.  And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​​◈  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)  Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  Customary and International Humanitarian Law​​Geneva Convention I​Geneva Convention II​Geneva Convention III​Geneva Convention IV​Additional Protocol I to GCIV​Additional Protocol II GCIV​Additional Protocol III​Hague Convention 1907​
> You are correct.  Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights."  But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others.  The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​This is true in general.  But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.  In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​​◈  political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​◈  to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​◈  to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​◈  to being occupied by Jordan,​◈  to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​◈  to being abandon by Jordan,​◈  to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​
> _(Ω)_
> 
> While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion.  In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.





RoccoR said:


> ◈ to being occupied by Jordan,


Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?

Put your dancing shoes on.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We could argue about this all day.  It would come to nothing.  It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth.  But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD.  That is more than a Millenium after King David.  What importance does that have?  It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing.  On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state."  ​​"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is the principle that each nation answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so."  With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen.  And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​​◈  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)  Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  Customary and International Humanitarian Law​​Geneva Convention I​Geneva Convention II​Geneva Convention III​Geneva Convention IV​Additional Protocol I to GCIV​Additional Protocol II GCIV​Additional Protocol III​Hague Convention 1907​
> You are correct.  Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights."  But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others.  The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​This is true in general.  But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.  In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​​◈  political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​◈  to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​◈  to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​◈  to being occupied by Jordan,​◈  to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​◈  to being abandon by Jordan,​◈  to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​
> _(Ω)_
> 
> While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion.  In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ to being occupied by Jordan,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?
> 
> Put your dancing shoes on.
Click to expand...

NONE

v/r
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).
> 
> 
> 
> Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?
> 
> Link?
> 
> I look forward to your duck.
Click to expand...


The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction.  It applies to "All Peoples."

v/r
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).
> 
> 
> 
> Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?
> 
> Link?
> 
> I look forward to your duck.
Click to expand...

What foreigners in what location?

Link?

Don’t duck like you usually do.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).
> 
> 
> 
> Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?
> 
> Link?
> 
> I look forward to your duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction.  It applies to "All Peoples."
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

Define peoples.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We could argue about this all day.  It would come to nothing.  It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth.  But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD.  That is more than a Millenium after King David.  What importance does that have?  It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing.  On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state."  ​​"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is the principle that each nation answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so."  With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen.  And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​​◈  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)  Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​​◈  Customary and International Humanitarian Law​​Geneva Convention I​Geneva Convention II​Geneva Convention III​Geneva Convention IV​Additional Protocol I to GCIV​Additional Protocol II GCIV​Additional Protocol III​Hague Convention 1907​
> You are correct.  Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights."  But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others.  The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​​​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(SUB-COMMENT)*​​This is true in general.  But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.  In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​​◈  political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​◈  to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​◈  to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​◈  to being occupied by Jordan,​◈  to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​◈  to being abandon by Jordan,​◈  to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​
> _(Ω)_
> 
> While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion.  In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ to being occupied by Jordan,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?
> 
> Put your dancing shoes on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NONE
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

So then, How did Jordan occupy a territory that was not sovereign? And, why did that territory revert back to Palestinian territory when Jordan released it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).
> 
> 
> 
> Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?
> 
> Link?
> 
> I look forward to your duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What foreigners in what location?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Don’t duck like you usually do.
Click to expand...

Both the Zionists, and the British, called the Zionist project colonialism. Their term not mine. Colonialism is, by definition, foreign control of another territory.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUB-REFERENCE: * PEOPLE 'vs' PEOPLES*
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Periodically, you ask this question as aan attempt to stump someone.  The last time you asked it was in July • *Posting #739*, RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate.



RoccoR said:


> The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction.  It applies to "All Peoples."





P F Tinmore said:


> Define peoples.


*(COMMENT)*

Maybe you should bookmark this page.
SEE:
“*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.

_Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

◈  Example:  The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The use of a "dictionary" which is appropriate to the topic is important.



P F Tinmore said:


> Both the Zionists, and the British, called the Zionist project colonialism. Their term not mine. Colonialism is, by definition, foreign control of another territory.


*(COMMENTARY)*

All colonialist settlements are established by another country; or foreign power.  But NOT ALL settlements established in foreign territory are colonial holdings.  In the case of the territory under the Mandate of Palestine in which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished all "Rights and Title" - the establishment of the Jewish National Home was by immigration invitation.  Many people writing on the subject us words of description that at not technically correct in a legalistic sense.

​


			
				Dictionary of Modern Politics said:
			
		

> *Colonialism* is the holding and ownership of colonies, or the treating of another country as though it was in fact a colony. Indeed recently the concept has been extended to refer to ‘internal’ colonialism, where the capital or economically dominant part of a country treats a distant region just as it might a genuinely foreign colony.  For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary. ​​◈  The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.​​◈  The entire reason for having colonies is to increase the wealth and welfare of the colonial power, either by extracting resources, material or labour from the colony more cheaply than they could be bought on a free market, or by ensuring a market for one’s own goods at advantageous rates.​​*SOURCE:* Europa Publications, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, United Kingdom, Page 89, © David Robertson 2002​​
> ​


​​




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUB-REFERENCE: * PEOPLE 'vs' PEOPLES*
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Periodically, you ask this question as aan attempt to stump someone.  The last time you asked it was in July • *Posting #739*, RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction.  It applies to "All Peoples."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Maybe you should bookmark this page.
> SEE:
> “*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.
> 
> _Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.
> 
> ◈  Example:  The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


*A question from Marlene in Brazil:*
How do I use the words _persons _and _peoples_? I’ve learned that we say one _person_, two _people _and we say _peoples _for nations. Am I correct?

Hi Marlene. This is a good question. As a general rule, you’re absolutely right





__





						Learning English -  Ask about English - 'persons' and 'peoples'
					

Amy Lightfoot answers a question from Marlene in Brazil and explains when to use the words 'persons' and 'peoples'. Ask about English: 2 March 2010



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



The French are "a People" in France. The British are "a people" in Britain. The Canadians are "a people" in Canada. The Palestinians are "a people" in Palestine. collectively they are the peoples of the world. Each has the right to self determination within their own nation. The French do not have the right to self determination in Britain.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUB-REFERENCE: * PEOPLE 'vs' PEOPLES*
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: In a very narrow view, you could be considered partially correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> The French are "a People" in France. The British are "a people" in Britain. The Canadians are "a people" in Canada. The Palestinians are "a people" in Palestine. collectively they are the peoples of the world. Each has the right to self determination within their own nation. The French do not have the right to self determination in Britain.


*(COMMENT)*

In the example _(supra)_ thed French that move and take up legal residence in Great Britain have the same voice in self-determination as any other resident.

In the US, those "Arab Palestinians" that take up legal residence and citizenship in the US have the same voice in matters of self-determination as any other American.

I still believe that you have very little understanding relative to what self-deterrmination is and what it means.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The use of a "dictionary" which is appropriate to the topic is important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the Zionists, and the British, called the Zionist project colonialism. Their term not mine. Colonialism is, by definition, foreign control of another territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENTARY)*
> 
> All colonialist settlements are established by another country; or foreign power.  But NOT ALL settlements established in foreign territory are colonial holdings.  In the case of the territory under the Mandate of Palestine in which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished all "Rights and Title" - the establishment of the Jewish National Home was by immigration invitation.  Many people writing on the subject us words of description that at not technically correct in a legalistic sense.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary of Modern Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Colonialism* is the holding and ownership of colonies, or the treating of another country as though it was in fact a colony. Indeed recently the concept has been extended to refer to ‘internal’ colonialism, where the capital or economically dominant part of a country treats a distant region just as it might a genuinely foreign colony.  For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary. ​​◈  The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.​​◈  The entire reason for having colonies is to increase the wealth and welfare of the colonial power, either by extracting resources, material or labour from the colony more cheaply than they could be bought on a free market, or by ensuring a market for one’s own goods at advantageous rates.​​*SOURCE:* Europa Publications, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, United Kingdom, Page 89, © David Robertson 2002​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*Zionist Colonialism in Palestine *

_The following excerpts are from of his ‘Zionist Colonialism in Palestine’, which is possibly one of the clearest and most concise descriptions of its generation to discuss the organisational set-up of the Zionist settler colonial movement, its diplomatic strategies, as well as the ideology and structural features underpinning it. As a document of its time, it places Zionist settler colonialism in the context of European colonialism, and yet it distinguishes the Zionist project from other settler colonial movements. 



			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648833?src=recsys
		

_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In the example _(supra)_ thed French that move and take up legal residence in Great Britain have the same voice in self-determination as any other resident.
> 
> In the US, those "Arab Palestinians" that take up legal residence and citizenship in the US have the same voice in matters of self-determination as any other American.


This is correct. In fact, according to the Mandate, the national home for the Jews was Palestinian citizenship in Palestine. Then they would have the same self determination as any other Palestinian.

Of course, the Zionist colonialists had no intention of becoming Palestinian.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders









						Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




another one of your lies refuted


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has Treaties that specifically address Permanent International Boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> Brokered by the US...you know...the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.
> 
> Israel claiming borders on territory that the UN calls Palestine.
Click to expand...

Israel’s borders are internationally recognized. Do you know what internationally recognized means ?

Would you like me to prove this once again ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Your answer is vague, too broad, and without a specific situation to refute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This one.
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SHORT BACKGROUND)*
> 
> In *Posting #535*, I asked the question related to the description and question I asked in *Posting #502*. Your answer was to merely echo my description and question?  It gave no event or example.  You did NOT answer the question.
> 
> (Ω)   Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?​
> In *Posting #508* → I again asked you to address the question Posting $502.
> 
> 
> In *Post #512* → I again tried to simplify your allegations.
> 
> SO*!*
> 
> In Posting #535 → I asked you for clarification on the basis of your allegations against Israel that you used as an answer:
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.  ​....................................................................................*-- OR --*​Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism" so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...​​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> You cannot give me an example.  So I will give you examples:
> 
> ◈✦  *Palestinians Fire Incendiary Balloons Towards Israel*​A Palestinian prepares to launch inflated condoms attached with an incendiary device to be directed and flown towards Israel, near Rafah along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel on August 21, 2020. SAID KHATIB / AFP​*Violation of: * 1997 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST CONVENTION:  The use of an explosive or* incendiary weapon or device* that is designed,or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage;​​◈✦  *Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian militants fire rockets*​The Israeli military said Friday it launched overnight airstrikes in the Gaza Strip after Palestinian militants fired two rockets, with no reports of casualties or major damage on either side.​​The military said fighter jets and other aircraft struck a weapons manufacturing site and “underground infrastructure” belonging to the Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza.​Associated Press_•_October 23, 2020​*Violation of:*  Customary Law Rule #11:  Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.​​◈✦ *Palestinians demand attacker's body on anniversary of terror attack*​Clashes broke out in the Palestinian neighborhood of Isawiya in north Jerusalem throughout Friday night between Palestinian locals and police, as well as Border Police, according to a report by Ynet.​The clashes broke out over the four year anniversary of the terrorist attack in Jerusalem's Ammunition Hill, when Misbah Abu Sbeih carried out a drive-by shooting and killed two Israelis.​Jerusalem Post By TAMAR BEERI•October 10, 2020​*Punishable Under:*  Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention:  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈✦ *Israel uncovers tunnel from Gaza, military says holds Hamas responsible*​Israel discovered a new cross-border tunnel from the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that its military said extended “dozens of metres underground” and into southern Israel.​TEL AVIV (Reuters)•October 20, 2020​Violation of:  Article 2(4) UN Charter:  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​​These are all recent (this month) of four (4) types of violations of different International Law origins.  Can you give me an example set wherein you believe that Israel violated some specific International Law, giving us a citation as I have, _supra_.
> ​
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Ω) Are you trying to say that the Arab Palestinians don't fit this description?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are discussing Israel's terrorism. You are deflecting.
Click to expand...

VERY nice duck


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Well I guess it is not so simple to demonstrate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are so innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT*)
> 
> I'm talking about recent times.
> 
> There is no instant replay.  The Arabs of Palestine have never really had any control over any aspect of the territory until the Oslo Accords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.
> 
> 1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> 2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.
> 
> 3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.
Click to expand...

What state are you referring to ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Responding to my Posting and answering the question are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one is ducking your posting.  You saw my *Posting #502*, actually copied my information, and repeated the definitions back to me.
> 
> Israel does not meet the definition of a terrorist organization.  (Not at all.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel does a number of these things in response to hostile activity initiated by Arab Palestinian organizations.  In any International Armed Conflict (IAC), any or all these actions may occur.  But that does not mean that Israel is one of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters performing "criminal acts" directed against the Arab Palestinian population, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.
> 
> I gave you a sample of four actual incidents _(within the last 60 days)_ in which different types of criminal activity were perpetrated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> You have not given one example _(within the last 60 days)_ of the Israelis violating any of the 19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions or any associated Customary and International Humanitarian Law.
> 
> You can't_*!!!*_
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians "routinely and quite frequently" commit an offense which were solely intended to harm the Israeli Forces or citizenry, → serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.   The Hostile Arab Palestinians commit intentional offenses which were intended to cause mass casualties, → and with the intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ducking, in an earlier post you mentioned that what Palestinians do is self defence (laughable btw)
I repeatedly asked you how stabbing Israelis and sending rockets into Israel is self defence. I have yet to receive an answer


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the example _(supra)_ thed French that move and take up legal residence in Great Britain have the same voice in self-determination as any other resident.
> 
> In the US, those "Arab Palestinians" that take up legal residence and citizenship in the US have the same voice in matters of self-determination as any other American.
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct. In fact, according to the Mandate, the national home for the Jews was Palestinian citizenship in Palestine. Then they would have the same self determination as any other Palestinian.
> 
> Of course, the Zionist colonialists had no intention of becoming Palestinian.
Click to expand...

Who cares ? Israel is a country , even recognized by the U.N . The same U.N that you mention so often.

I have alegit question for you Tinmore: aren’t you tired of having every one of your lies refuted ?? Like , doesn’t it bother you ? Also, why do you duck so many questions?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
Click to expand...

Did they change their borders?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
Click to expand...

I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Responding to my Posting and answering the question are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one is ducking your posting.  You saw my *Posting #502*, actually copied my information, and repeated the definitions back to me.
> 
> Israel does not meet the definition of a terrorist organization.  (Not at all.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel does a number of these things in response to hostile activity initiated by Arab Palestinian organizations.  In any International Armed Conflict (IAC), any or all these actions may occur.  But that does not mean that Israel is one of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters performing "criminal acts" directed against the Arab Palestinian population, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.
> 
> I gave you a sample of four actual incidents _(within the last 60 days)_ in which different types of criminal activity were perpetrated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> You have not given one example _(within the last 60 days)_ of the Israelis violating any of the 19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions or any associated Customary and International Humanitarian Law.
> 
> You can't_*!!!*_
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians "routinely and quite frequently" commit an offense which were solely intended to harm the Israeli Forces or citizenry, → serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.   The Hostile Arab Palestinians commit intentional offenses which were intended to cause mass casualties, → and with the intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of ducking, in an earlier post you mentioned that what Palestinians do is self defence (laughable btw)
> I repeatedly asked you how stabbing Israelis and sending rockets into Israel is self defence. I have yet to receive an answer
Click to expand...

So, what would you consider a legitimate self defense?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
Click to expand...

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established. 









						Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
					

Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...




					journals.openedition.org


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Responding to my Posting and answering the question are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Rocco's request.
> 
> Why is everyone ducking my post?
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one is ducking your posting.  You saw my *Posting #502*, actually copied my information, and repeated the definitions back to me.
> 
> Israel does not meet the definition of a terrorist organization.  (Not at all.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of these that Israel does not do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel does a number of these things in response to hostile activity initiated by Arab Palestinian organizations.  In any International Armed Conflict (IAC), any or all these actions may occur.  But that does not mean that Israel is one of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters performing "criminal acts" directed against the Arab Palestinian population, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public.
> 
> I gave you a sample of four actual incidents _(within the last 60 days)_ in which different types of criminal activity were perpetrated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> You have not given one example _(within the last 60 days)_ of the Israelis violating any of the 19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions or any associated Customary and International Humanitarian Law.
> 
> You can't_*!!!*_
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians "routinely and quite frequently" commit an offense which were solely intended to harm the Israeli Forces or citizenry, → serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.   The Hostile Arab Palestinians commit intentional offenses which were intended to cause mass casualties, → and with the intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.
> 
> You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Nice duck though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of ducking, in an earlier post you mentioned that what Palestinians do is self defence (laughable btw)
> I repeatedly asked you how stabbing Israelis and sending rockets into Israel is self defence. I have yet to receive an answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what would you consider a legitimate self defense?
Click to expand...

Destroying weapons and killing ‘people’ who pose a threat to another country.
Also, nice duck. You STILL didn’t answer my question


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
Click to expand...

 
Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain. 

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920). 

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. 

The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. 









						Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
					

Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...




					journals.openedition.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
Click to expand...


Such repetitive nonsense. You’re back with that silly bulletin, again.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: This is a very well-spoken opinion. But it makes a very similar mistake to that of what you make.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Zionist Colonialism in Palestine *
> 
> _The following excerpts are from of his ‘Zionist Colonialism in Palestine’, which is possibly one of the clearest and most concise descriptions of its generation to discuss the organisational set-up of the Zionist settler colonial movement, its diplomatic strategies, as well as the ideology and structural features underpinning it. As a document of its time, it places Zionist settler colonialism in the context of European colonialism, and yet it distinguishes the Zionist project from other settler colonial movements.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648833?src=recsys
> 
> 
> _


*(COMMENT)*

Dr Fayez Sayegh was not holding an atypical posture for a Syrian born _(wait for it - 1922)_ _→_ self-proclaimed Palestinian-American.  Couple that _→ _with the fact that many academicians of that period of publication  were rabble-rousers.  Dr Sayegh wrote the essay (2013) just in time for the up-tick in the intensity of Arab-Palestinian hostilities leading to Operation Protective Edge.   Dr Sayegh was writing about the "1922-1980" period of the Region as he perceived and interpreted the political position in "1965" (_the era in which The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was organized and founded → 1964_).  It was a very typical pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) think piece in the early second-stage development of pro-Arab Palestine support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  This type of article on the perceptions in the mid-1960s was about how the early PLO support layed the ground-work for the justification for the rise in terrorism immediately following the 1965 time period and the incitement for the 1967 Six Day War.

Don't confuse what this Arab Palestinian says with the true meaning of "colonialism."  The vilification of "colonialism" and then associating it with the development



P F Tinmore said:


> This is correct. In fact, according to the Mandate, the national home for the Jews was Palestinian citizenship in Palestine. Then they would have the same self determination as any other Palestinian.
> 
> Of course, the Zionist colonialists had no intention of becoming Palestinian.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a magician's hat-trick. In 1922 (the year of the Mandate) the term "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council which said: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine*." When, in those days, Palestine Citizenship was mentioned, it really meant the "Government of Palestine." And as you well know, from 1922 until 1948, the British High Commissioner governed the territories to which the Mandate with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.  The Government of Palestine (AKA: Palestine) was the entity necessary for the British Administration of the territory.  This makes sense because - at that time, it was the immediate successor Governemnt from Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic Rule.

While it is very easy for a historian to work backwards from today and connect the dots on decisions made that lead to Israeli Independence, it was by no means so obvious as the situation in the first half of the 20th Century evolved.  The Arab Palestinians could have caused a political course change at any point, prior to the 1947 British decision to vacate the Mandated - just by asking to be included in the development of self-govering institutions.  But they did not.  And so it began - the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.

When we look at the "intentions of the Zionists" as Dr Sayegh writes about it, you have to remember that you could point your finger in any direction on the gobal compass and see the want and the need for "nationalism."  You are foolish to think that the Middle East was unique.  It is just that the Arab Palestinians made such a mess of it.  One can only wonder what the Region might look like today if the Arab Palestinians had cooperated at any time between 1922 and 1947.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

*BLUF: * You keep circling the drain on this.

​


			
				Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *delimitation *‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a boundary. *The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written source,* or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. *Demarcation denotes the means by** which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns** of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. *The principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ), 4.​​*SOURCE*: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Page 146 •​Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence​in research, scholarship, and education. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​​


​




P F Tinmore said:


> Did they change their borders?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change.

Israel has both the delimitation and demarcation of their boundary.  The Arab Palestinians have none; other than that established by other Regional Parties.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: This is another one of those "undefined and ambiguous questions.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, what would you consider a legitimate self defense?


*(COMMENT)*

Article 51 UN Charter and remembering that “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

*BLUF: * This is so said. You need to come join us in the 21st Century.



P F Tinmore said:


> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed...


*(COMMENT)*

Not only did you get part of the history wrong, but what you've cited has no real impact on what is amendable if, in fact, anything needs amended today.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: This is another one of those "undefined and ambiguous questions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would you consider a legitimate self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 51 UN Charter and remembering that “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Article 51 UN Charter and remembering that “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)


It works for Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: This is a very well-spoken opinion. But it makes a very similar mistake to that of what you make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionist Colonialism in Palestine *
> 
> _The following excerpts are from of his ‘Zionist Colonialism in Palestine’, which is possibly one of the clearest and most concise descriptions of its generation to discuss the organisational set-up of the Zionist settler colonial movement, its diplomatic strategies, as well as the ideology and structural features underpinning it. As a document of its time, it places Zionist settler colonialism in the context of European colonialism, and yet it distinguishes the Zionist project from other settler colonial movements.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648833?src=recsys
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Dr Fayez Sayegh was not holding an atypical posture for a Syrian born _(wait for it - 1922)_ _→_ self-proclaimed Palestinian-American.  Couple that _→ _with the fact that many academicians of that period of publication  were rabble-rousers.  Dr Sayegh wrote the essay (2013) just in time for the up-tick in the intensity of Arab-Palestinian hostilities leading to Operation Protective Edge.   Dr Sayegh was writing about the "1922-1980" period of the Region as he perceived and interpreted the political position in "1965" (_the era in which The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was organized and founded → 1964_).  It was a very typical pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) think piece in the early second-stage development of pro-Arab Palestine support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  This type of article on the perceptions in the mid-1960s was about how the early PLO support layed the ground-work for the justification for the rise in terrorism immediately following the 1965 time period and the incitement for the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> Don't confuse what this Arab Palestinian says with the true meaning of "colonialism."  The vilification of "colonialism" and then associating it with the development
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct. In fact, according to the Mandate, the national home for the Jews was Palestinian citizenship in Palestine. Then they would have the same self determination as any other Palestinian.
> 
> Of course, the Zionist colonialists had no intention of becoming Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a magician's hat-trick. In 1922 (the year of the Mandate) the term "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council which said: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine*." When, in those days, Palestine Citizenship was mentioned, it really meant the "Government of Palestine." And as you well know, from 1922 until 1948, the British High Commissioner governed the territories to which the Mandate with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.  The Government of Palestine (AKA: Palestine) was the entity necessary for the British Administration of the territory.  This makes sense because - at that time, it was the immediate successor Governemnt from Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic Rule.
> 
> While it is very easy for a historian to work backwards from today and connect the dots on decisions made that lead to Israeli Independence, it was by no means so obvious as the situation in the first half of the 20th Century evolved.  The Arab Palestinians could have caused a political course change at any point, prior to the 1947 British decision to vacate the Mandated - just by asking to be included in the development of self-govering institutions.  But they did not.  And so it began - the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.
> 
> When we look at the "intentions of the Zionists" as Dr Sayegh writes about it, you have to remember that you could point your finger in any direction on the gobal compass and see the want and the need for "nationalism."  You are foolish to think that the Middle East was unique.  It is just that the Arab Palestinians made such a mess of it.  One can only wonder what the Region might look like today if the Arab Palestinians had cooperated at any time between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So, how does all that verbosity refute my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This is so said. You need to come join us in the 21st Century.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you get part of the history wrong, but what you've cited has no real impact on what is amendable if, in fact, anything needs amended today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What part if that is wrong?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change.
> 
> Israel has both the delimitation and demarcation of their boundary. The Arab Palestinians have none; other than that established by other Regional Parties.


Do you have any links for that?

Of course not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This is so said. You need to come join us in the 21st Century.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you get part of the history wrong, but what you've cited has no real impact on what is amendable if, in fact, anything needs amended today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Which part did I get wrong?

Links?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This is so said. You need to come join us in the 21st Century.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you get part of the history wrong, but what you've cited has no real impact on what is amendable if, in fact, anything needs amended today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which part did I get wrong?
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...


Maybe now should drag that dead Zebra back into the thread.

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You are just plain foolish here.



RoccoR said:


> Article 51 UN Charter and remembering that “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)





P F Tinmore said:


> It works for Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

I have yet to hear a specific claim as to an act of terrorism on the part of the Israelis since the time of the Oslo Accords.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You didn't write a Post. All you did was to cherry-pick someone's (Dr Fayez Sayegh) Essay and repost it.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, how does all that verbosity refute my post?


*(COMMENT)*

I explained why I disagree with Dr Fayez Sayegh's essay.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There are several points I question as valid.  But that is really -  neither here nor there.

*BLUF: * Nother you've said is decision making relevant to the nature and scope of the conflict of TODAY*!*



P F Tinmore said:


> What part if that is wrong?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure that political decisions that were made in the 1960s and going back to the 1920s can be replayed in the 21st Century (some over nearly 100 years later).  April of this year was the 100th Anaversary to the decisions made at San Remo by the Principal Allied Powers.  

*Stare decisis | law | Britannica*
Stare decisis, (Latin: “let the decision stand”), in Anglo-American law, *principle that a question once considered by a court and answered must elicit the same response each time the same issue is brought before the courts*. 
Maybe "Stare Decisis," being that it is a legal concept → does not apply to political concepts, but the logic on which it is based applies to the situations that the Great Was Allied Powers made - and the direct _(taking action to correct perceived injustices)_ or tacit approval _(not taking action to correct perceived injustices)_ by the League of Nations and the subsequent United Nations sill stand as it is today.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I'm confused...



RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change.
> 
> Israel has both the delimitation and demarcation of their boundary. The Arab Palestinians have none; other than that established by other Regional Parties.





P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have any links for that?
> 
> Of course not.


*(COMMENT)*

For what in particular do you need a link?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

swing away can opener


RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You didn't write a Post. All you did was to cherry-pick someone's (Dr Fayez Sayegh) Essay and repost it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how does all that verbosity refute my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I explained why I disagree with Dr Fayez Sayegh's essay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but settler colonialism, along with apartheid, are used all over the place now. Israel's only response is to deny and shut people up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I'm confused...
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change.
> 
> Israel has both the delimitation and demarcation of their boundary. The Arab Palestinians have none; other than that established by other Regional Parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any links for that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For what in particular do you need a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Let's start with this.

The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change. 

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> swing away can opener
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You didn't write a Post. All you did was to cherry-pick someone's (Dr Fayez Sayegh) Essay and repost it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how does all that verbosity refute my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I explained why I disagree with Dr Fayez Sayegh's essay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but settler colonialism, along with apartheid, are used all over the place now. Israel's only response is to deny and shut people up.
Click to expand...

You have made no case to support your usual slogans for either colonialism or apartheid.

The problem you have is that cutting and pasting slogans you find on Islamic websites simply makes you an accomplice to Islamic propaganda. You can't even define the slogans you cut and paste such that you don't understand the slogans are meaningless.

Link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
Click to expand...

First off, NOTHING in your post answered my question.
Second, Israel has an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER with Egypt as well as Jordan 

The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, created an officially recognized international border









						Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




From the same link:
The Israel–Jordan peace treaty, signed on October 26, 1994, resolved all outstanding territorial and border issues between the two countries that had existed since the 1948 War. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan




That was just too easy Tinmore


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, NOTHING in your post answered my question.
> Second, Israel has an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER with Egypt as well as Jordan
> 
> The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, created an officially recognized international border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> The Israel–Jordan peace treaty, signed on October 26, 1994, resolved all outstanding territorial and border issues between the two countries that had existed since the 1948 War. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just too easy Tinmore
Click to expand...

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, NOTHING in your post answered my question.
> Second, Israel has an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER with Egypt as well as Jordan
> 
> The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, created an officially recognized international border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> The Israel–Jordan peace treaty, signed on October 26, 1994, resolved all outstanding territorial and border issues between the two countries that had existed since the 1948 War. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just too easy Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and when you're asked how Israel can define borders with adjoining nations, you plead hurt feelings.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * It is just another case of P F Tinmore attempting to justify violations of international counter-terrorism conventions and the parallel attempt of blaming Israel for a conflict perpetuated by Hostile Arab Palestinians..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel calling the Palestinian terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.
> Why is it you never mention Israel's vastly more terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You played the terrorist card.
> Good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Name a case of Israeli Terrorism_ (or any significant violation of any International Law on violence)_ perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians since the First Intifada began in December 1987_ (in the last three decades)_.
> ....................................................................................*-- OR --*
> Name the most recent example of what you call "Israel's vastly more terrorism"  so that we can discuss a set of unambiguous specifics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at your list. Israel does all of those.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> shall be deemed to be terrorist offences
> a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
> (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
> (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
> (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
> (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
> (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
> (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
> (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See.  You simply cannot answer the question.  Your credibility is ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.  Now it is up to you to ask for clarification.
> 
> Don't drop the ball in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which post did you answer the question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody has refuted any of those items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you said has been refuted.
> I’ll give you a perfect example of you not being able to admit that your lie has been refuted:
> Tinmore, does Palestine have international borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your lies refuted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did they change their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand you or question. But if Palestine has international borders , what are they and when we’re they declared ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer my question. Specifically, what are Palestine’s borders (east, west, south, north) and when were they established ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> Introduction This paper addresses the status of the inhabitants of the territory that has become known as ‘Palestine’ and that had been part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, during the period star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.openedition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, NOTHING in your post answered my question.
> Second, Israel has an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER with Egypt as well as Jordan
> 
> The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, created an officially recognized international border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> The Israel–Jordan peace treaty, signed on October 26, 1994, resolved all outstanding territorial and border issues between the two countries that had existed since the 1948 War. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> On the contrary, the land belongs to Israel. That is why the treaties were negotiated with ISRAEL with no mention of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That was just too easy Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
Click to expand...

on the contrary, the land belongs to Israel. In the link I provided, it clearly states that the treaties that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS, were negotiated with Israel. No mention of Palestine .

Please show me how the u.n , now in 2020 ; refer to Israel land as Palestine.
Oh, and btw, nice duck ! 
PF Tinmore, the king of ducking and dancing


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Both terms "apartheid" and "Colonialism" are not applicable. Those terms are used by people that do not know any better.

Article 7, Page 4, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and *domination by  one  racial  group  over  any  other  racial  group  or  groups  and  committed  with  the  intention  of  maintaining that regime*;

X)  The "colonialism" is not even a "crime" under Rome Statues.

The Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24)  did not address any Region in the Middle East that requires action under the A/RES/15/1514 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries. _(I admit, I only looked at Session from 2010 thru 2019)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but settler colonialism, along with apartheid, are used all over the place now. Israel's only response is to deny and shut people up.


*(COMMENT)*

Today, threre are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories world wide thare are idedentified by C-24. Israel is not currently identified as an Administering Power over any "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”

You can say that I don't know what I'm talking about, but can you honestly say that you know more than the "Special Committee on Decolonization" or the "C-24" as the designation???

People, particularly those trying to garner support by deception, uses these terms to provoke emotions to their supported position on "apartheid" and Colonialism."

This attempt to spread the ideas that there is a racial component to the conflict or that there is a colonial component to the settlements is false and inaccurate information  → that is intended to deceive members of the discussion group _(and beyond)_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You are asking me to provide a link to a phantom.



P F Tinmore said:


> Let's start with this.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians never had any borders/boundaries to change.
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

The absence of evidence → a link that shows there is no border administered by the Arab Palestinians → is not evidence of absence.  The pro-Arab Palestinians could say that, because there is no evidence that says they have no borders, that position must be false.

The valid question is, what borders (Demarcations) do the Arab Palestinians maintain?  What borders (demarcations) have the Arab Palestinians shown to be their territory govern in the past century?

I would like you to make a sound and valid argument as to why we should believe and support the position that the Arab Palestinians ever established and maintained boundaries of their own after declaring independence.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

*BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_



			
				P F Tionmore said:
			
		

> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group. 

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tionmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.
> 
> ✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
> There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.

You have been dancing around that issue for years.


----------



## RoccoR

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tionmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.
> 
> ✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
> There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
23 January 2020 Posting # 374


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *Again you are not telling the truth.



P F Tinmore said:


> In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.
> 
> You have been dancing around that issue for years.


*(COMMENT)*

The method of acquisition is a political issue to be solved among the state claiming to have some sort of standing.

Sovereignty is a matter of extending the umbrella to own and control some area of the world, the sole right of the authorities of a particular country to take decisions affecting its citizens.  Legal or not, if Israel is the sole authority over a territory and declares it annexed, it is so. By international law, it does not require recognition by any other nation.   But being ineffective control does not require annexation.

You need to forget about "legally acquired" territory.  The world simply does not work that way; it is not ideal.   Just look at the Chinese in the South China Sea, or the Russians in the Crimea.  Nations are utilitarian; working in their own best interest.

The treaties, agreements, and extended control are done.  They are a matter of record and internationally posted according to their type.  For the purposes of our discussion, it is done.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tionmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.
> 
> ✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
> There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
> 23 January 2020 Posting # 374
Click to expand...

That still does not address the question.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tionmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.
> 
> ✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
> There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.
> 
> You have been dancing around that issue for years.
Click to expand...

Got a link for that ?


----------



## toastman

BTW Tinmore, wether or wether not you believe Israel acquired land legally or not, Israel is still a sovereign state, Palestine is not. Israel has internationally recognized borders, Palestine does not.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * That is a Bold Face Lie._  (And I seldom use that word.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tionmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no dancing whatsoever.  There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member.  In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.
> 
> ✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​
> There is no dancing around the topic.  Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel.  For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links _(where available)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
> 23 January 2020 Posting # 374
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That still does not address the question.
Click to expand...


It does. Your hurt feelings are an impediment to your acceptance of the facts.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your Question:  "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

*BLUF:  *If YOU study The Theory of Reasoning, ultimately you see that it is just a means of justifying some thought, or system of ideas intended to explain something YOU consider both sound and valid. When a pro-Arab Palestinian attempts to apply logic and reason to their political position, they form their arguments to be either convincing OR more often to reinforce the belief that their audience already holds.   But as the noted Doctoral Candidate *Steve Rathje* wrote in Psychology Today, "it does not make us particularly good at truth-seeking." Most pro-Arab Palestinians have a tendency to cherry-pick research that appears to support what other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe. Being both sound and valid takes a backseat to actually being a truthful representation of the situation.



P F Tinmore said:


> That still does not address the question.


*(COMMENT)*

So here, no matter what evidentiary information is presented, if it doesn't appear to support what YOU_ (contradictory to your position) _and other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe →  it is rejected.  And that is the fallacy YOU are driving home.  In general, the pro-Arab Palestinian only accepts that which is clear and incontrovertibly supports what they believe should true.

You ask the question:  "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

◈  I respond with the legal documentation which is a matter of record. _(The Treaties.)_​​◈  I respond with the civil and political right under which the action was taken.  _(Self-Determination and the Actual effective or sovereign control.)_​​◈  I respond with the International legal basis _(The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)_​​You respond with, "it doesn't answer the question."  But instead of critiquing the content or challenging the validity, you ignore the reality behind the answers given.  That in itself is a fallacy and an error in critical thinking. So, I plead, what specifically do you want - any more than what you already have?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Your Question:  "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"
> 
> *BLUF:  *If YOU study The Theory of Reasoning, ultimately you see that it is just a means of justifying some thought, or system of ideas intended to explain something YOU consider both sound and valid. When a pro-Arab Palestinian attempts to apply logic and reason to their political position, they form their arguments to be either convincing OR more often to reinforce the belief that their audience already holds.   But as the noted Doctoral Candidate *Steve Rathje* wrote in Psychology Today, "it does not make us particularly good at truth-seeking." Most pro-Arab Palestinians have a tendency to cherry-pick research that appears to support what other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe. Being both sound and valid takes a backseat to actually being a truthful representation of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still does not address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So here, no matter what evidentiary information is presented, if it doesn't appear to support what YOU_ (contradictory to your position) _and other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe →  it is rejected.  And that is the fallacy YOU are driving home.  In general, the pro-Arab Palestinian only accepts that which is clear and incontrovertibly supports what they believe should true.
> 
> You ask the question:  "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"
> 
> ◈  I respond with the legal documentation which is a matter of record. _(The Treaties.)_​​◈  I respond with the civil and political right under which the action was taken.  _(Self-Determination and the Actual effective or sovereign control.)_​​◈  I respond with the International legal basis _(The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)_​​You respond with, "it doesn't answer the question."  But instead of critiquing the content or challenging the validity, you ignore the reality behind the answers given.  That in itself is a fallacy and an error in critical thinking. So, I plead, what specifically do you want - any more than what you already have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should make my question more clear.

Palestine's international borders were defined by post war *treaties.* That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the *Treaty of Lausanne.*

What *treaty* transferred a defined territory to Israel? What are the borders of that defined territory?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  I know of NO treaty which mentions Palestine in any post-War of the 20th Century.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Palestine's international borders were defined by post war *treaties.* That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the *Treaty of Lausanne.*


*(COMMENT)*

I know of no post-War in the 20th Century that establishes the State of Palestine.  

The Government of Palestine was established under the authority of the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers received their authority from Article 16 to the* Territory Clause*, Treaty of Lausanne.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the *future of these territories* and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. ​​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. ​



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> What *treaty* transferred a defined territory to Israel?


*(COMMENT)*

The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.

Pursuant to the Lausanne, the UN • Trustee System and offer under A/RES/181 (II) Partitioned the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.  

The UN was the lead on getting the necessarly self-governing institutions in place and recognized internationally.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> What are the borders of that defined territory?


*(COMMENT)*

The initial borders where that which were recommended by the UN Special Committee for Palestine.  However, within hours of the announced Independence, the Arab League intitated an International Armed Conflict.  By the time of the Cessation of Hostilities, the various Armitice Agreements set in place lines underwhich the State of Israel established control all along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area now silent.  These Armistice Agreements were to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.  
They are:

◈  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995)   Map 6  •​​◈  Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel  •​​◈  Golan Heights Law  •​​◈  Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979)  •​​◈  Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)  •​​◈  Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon*  •*​
All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now.  No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events.  

*(∑ Ω)*

We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...


The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...
> 
> 
> 
> The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.
Click to expand...

What new states?

link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  I know of NO treaty which mentions Palestine in any post-War of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by post war *treaties.* That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the *Treaty of Lausanne.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I know of no post-War in the 20th Century that establishes the State of Palestine.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was established under the authority of the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Allied Powers received their authority from Article 16 to the* Territory Clause*, Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the *future of these territories* and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. ​​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *treaty* transferred a defined territory to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Pursuant to the Lausanne, the UN • Trustee System and offer under A/RES/181 (II) Partitioned the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.
> 
> The UN was the lead on getting the necessarly self-governing institutions in place and recognized internationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the borders of that defined territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The initial borders where that which were recommended by the UN Special Committee for Palestine.  However, within hours of the announced Independence, the Arab League intitated an International Armed Conflict.  By the time of the Cessation of Hostilities, the various Armitice Agreements set in place lines underwhich the State of Israel established control all along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area now silent.  These Armistice Agreements were to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.
> They are:
> 
> ◈  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995)   Map 6  •​​◈  Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel  •​​◈  Golan Heights Law  •​​◈  Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979)  •​​◈  Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)  •​​◈  Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon*  •*​
> All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now.  No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events.
> 
> *(∑ Ω)*
> 
> We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.


You are deflecting again.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.     
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Hollie's question points directly at your misunderstanding.



RoccoR said:


> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...





P F Tinmore said:


> The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.





Hollie said:


> What new states?
> 
> link?


*(COMMENT)*

Article 16 did not address "New States."  It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to any of the proceedings.  

*(∑ Ω)*


P F Tinmore said:


> You are deflecting again.



Again, no one is deflecting anything.  That dog won't hunt...  It is not a rebuttal.  

As a deep political opinion, no matter how you look at it, the Arab intervention in 1948 and the subsequent decisions the Arabs League made, applily demonstrated the potential for a future the Arab Palestinians had if under Arab Rule.  If we were just talking about a comparison between Israel and the Arab Partitian, your arguement that Israel held the Arab Palestinians down might have merit.  But if you expand the compaison to Israel versus the enitie Middle East, you will see that it was the Arab League influence that was deficient.  Israel had a greater outcome in Human Development than any other country in the Middle East and states of the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.  AND if you look at what the Arab Palestinians could have had in 1948 without the conflict in comparison to what the outcome is today, you have to agree, the Arab Palestinians would have been much better off without the intervention.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."


And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.   
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* The Treaty of Lausanne covers more than just the Region of Palestine.  It covers the entirety of the Ottoman Empire _(Less The Turkish Republic)_.  That included what we call today, Bosnia, Albania Serbia, Romanian, Saudi Arabia, etc...  When the Allied Powers signed the Treaty, it was exclusively pertaining to Palestine.  In fact, the Region of Palestine was not even a political subdivision.



RoccoR said:


> Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."





P F Tinmore said:


> And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."
> 
> And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 covered the change in Nationalities for the residents, not territorial distribution.  Iraqis would be Iraqis, Saudis would be Saudis, Kuwaitis would be Kuwaitis, The people of the Hejaz would be Saudis, etc, etc, etc.  From the borders of the former Austo-Hungrain Empire to the borders of the form Russian Empire and the Persian Empire.    It did not cover the territorial break-up --- it just made sure that whatever the breakup looked like post-War, the residents would have the associated nationality.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."
> 
> 
> 
> And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."
> 
> And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?
Click to expand...


Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.

You are deflecting again.

You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.

What new states?

Link ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."
> 
> 
> 
> And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."
> 
> And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.
> 
> You are deflecting again.
> 
> You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.
> 
> What new states?
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...


NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in *territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is *detached from Turkey* will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*​

What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "*the* *future of these territories*" and "to be settled *by the parties concerned*."
> 
> 
> 
> And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."
> 
> And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.
> 
> You are deflecting again.
> 
> You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.
> 
> What new states?
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NATIONALITY.​ARTICLE 30.​​Turkish subjects habitually resident in *territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is *detached from Turkey* will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*​
> 
> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
Click to expand...

You are deflecting again. 

Where in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is ''new states'' written?

Your hurt feelings about being called out for such dishonesty is yours to address.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?


What makes you think they would be new states?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.   
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* This is all about what YOU want it to mean, and not what the principal actors of a Century ago meant when they wrote it and for the decades afterward.




P F Tinmore said:


> NATIONALITY.​ARTICLE 30.​​Turkish subjects habitually resident in *territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is *detached from Turkey* will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*​
> 
> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?



*(COMMENT)*

For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.   The Allied Powers made a Mandate Government pending the final partition of statehood.

Your argument does not fly.  The entire League of Nations established the Mandate for Palestine _("the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*")_. The final determination was not affixed.

You are getting desperate here.  Remember Article 16 in among the "Territorial Clauses" and Article 30 is NOT.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.


Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Joseph Massad on Peace Is War - Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.
> 
> How then do the title and rights go to someone else?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...


You're deflecting again.

What new states?

You're inventing a version of history that doesn't exist outside of the P F Tinmore imagination.  What new states were created and can you identify those new states?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.   
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.



P F Tinmore said:


> You don't make any sense.


*(COMMENT)*

◈'  The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​​◈''  The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​​◈'''  Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​
The nationality does not set the boundaries.  It is the boundaries that set the nationalities.  And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*"  From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian* (Treaty # 564)*.  Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920*.  It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia." 

Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further.   As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in *Posting #631* of this thread.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈'  The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​​◈''  The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​​◈'''  Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​
> The nationality does not set the boundaries.  It is the boundaries that set the nationalities.  And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*"  From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian* (Treaty # 564)*.  Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920*.  It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."
> 
> Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further.   As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in *Posting #631* of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈'  The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​​◈''  The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​​◈'''  Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​
> The nationality does not set the boundaries.  It is the boundaries that set the nationalities.  And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*"  From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian* (Treaty # 564)*.  Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920*.  It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."
> 
> Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further.   As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in *Posting #631* of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
Click to expand...


In all that which you deflect from.

Now, about those new states you claim existed but can't identify. 

You appear rather buffoonish as you sidestep and deflect.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews. 
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* OK, I was waiting for that.  How did I know you were going to say that*?*
...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.



P F Tinmore said:


> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
> 
> Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.
> 
> How then do the title and rights go to someone else?
> 
> You don't make any sense.





P F Tinmore said:


> OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?


*(COMMENT)*

It is called an evidentuary walk-thru.  It connects the dots.  Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.

The odd thing is...  The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested.  The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* OK, I was waiting for that.  How did I know you were going to say that*?*
> ...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
> 
> Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.
> 
> How then do the title and rights go to someone else?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is called an evidentuary walk-thru.  It connects the dots.  Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.
> 
> The odd thing is...  The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested.  The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? I can't find where you addressed my post.


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is all about what YOU want it to mean, and not what the principal actors of a Century ago meant when they wrote it and for the decades afterward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> NATIONALITY.​ARTICLE 30.​​Turkish subjects habitually resident in *territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is *detached from Turkey* will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*​
> 
> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.   The Allied Powers made a Mandate Government pending the final partition of statehood.
> 
> Your argument does not fly.  The entire League of Nations established the Mandate for Palestine _("the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*")_. The final determination was not affixed.
> 
> You are getting desperate here.  Remember Article 16 in among the "Territorial Clauses" and Article 30 is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

BINGO ! It is all about what Tinmore wants it to mean. He is so detached from reality, that he makes up his own history .


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* OK, I was waiting for that.  How did I know you were going to say that*?*
> ...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
> 
> Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.
> 
> How then do the title and rights go to someone else?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is called an evidentuary walk-thru.  It connects the dots.  Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.
> 
> The odd thing is...  The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested.  The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I missing something? I can't find where you addressed my post.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are missing something. Actually you’re missing everything .
If you can’t find where he addressed your post....
Actually, I think you CHOSE not to pay attention to the past of his post that addressed yours ..


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈'  The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​​◈''  The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​​◈'''  Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​
> The nationality does not set the boundaries.  It is the boundaries that set the nationalities.  And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*"  From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian* (Treaty # 564)*.  Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920*.  It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."
> 
> Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further.   As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in *Posting #631* of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
Click to expand...


Still deflecting on those 'new states'' you claim are defined in the Treaty of Lausanne. 

Please identify where those are named in Article 30.

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.  
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* The mechanism for the authority (Title and Rights) to transfer is Article 16.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers made the determination.

What is it that you don't understand?



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.

Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?

link?







						Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
					






					wwi.lib.byu.edu
				




ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.  
⁜→  Hollie, et al,

BLUF:  Hollie... YOU are right on the money.



Hollie said:


> I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
> Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi.lib.byu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


*(COMMENT)*

Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders" _(something to that effect)_.  Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.  


			
				FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR  SYRIA AND  THE LEBANON said:
			
		

> The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-
> 
> *Article 1*​The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:-    →
> *SOURCE*:  *Treaty #564*




The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State."  I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly.  He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.

If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do.  We need to move on to the issues of the present day.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
> 
> Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
> 
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi.lib.byu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Click to expand...

That is more clear than Rocco's rambling, irrelevant posts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→  Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Hollie... YOU are right on the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
> Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi.lib.byu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders" _(something to that effect)_.  Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR  SYRIA AND  THE LEBANON said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-​​*Article 1*​
> The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:-    → ​*SOURCE*:  *Treaty #564*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State."  I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly.  He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.
> 
> If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do.  We need to move on to the issues of the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, I am ready for a laugh. Explain to me how Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine were not new states.


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→  Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Hollie... YOU are right on the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
> Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi.lib.byu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders" _(something to that effect)_.  Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR  SYRIA AND  THE LEBANON said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-​​*Article 1*​
> The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:-    → ​*SOURCE*:  *Treaty #564*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State."  I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly.  He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.
> 
> If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do.  We need to move on to the issues of the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I agree and I think P F Tinmore is adding context and intent to the wording of the treaty which are his alone.

The wording of Article 30, “State to which such territory is transferred.” does nothing to create any “State of Palestine” which, my impression, is what P F Tinmore insists the Treaty is establishing.

He has spent an entire decade pushing that falsehood and tends to run screaming from any counter to his ‘wants and needs” as he has done in this thread.

Moving to the present day as you describe is necessary as the Middle East is changing and realigning alliances and relations between Arabs and the Jewish State. I’m afraid however that P F Tinmore holds an eternal grievance and that neither time or distance will allow him to let go of.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews. 
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  They were designated Territories under Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, I am ready for a laugh. Explain to me how Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine were not new states.


*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of Iraq, those nations did not meet State State until the 1940s.

◈  *Lebanon* did not become an independent and self-governing nation until:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​​◈  *Syria* did not become an independent and self-governing nation until: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​​◈  *Iraq* did not become an independent and self-governing nation until: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​​◈  *Jordan* did not become an independent and self-governing nation until: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​​◈  *Palestine* has not completed its transition;​​◈ * Israel *(Partition of Palestine) became an independent and self-governing nation: 15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ * Israel *(Partition of Palestine)


What partition?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→  Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Hollie... YOU are right on the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
> Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi.lib.byu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders" _(something to that effect)_.  Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR  SYRIA AND  THE LEBANON said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-​​*Article 1*​
> The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:-    → ​*SOURCE*:  *Treaty #564*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State."  I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly.  He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.
> 
> If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do.  We need to move on to the issues of the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I am ready for a laugh. Explain to me how Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine were not new states.
Click to expand...

You claim Palestine was a state before Israel. Well then , if that was the case, why declare independence right after Israel did so, than again in 1988 if they were already a state


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ * Israel *(Partition of Palestine)
> 
> 
> 
> What partition?
Click to expand...

Why do you ask questions you know the answer to?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Tammi Rossman-Benjamin: BDS on U.S. College Campuses. Kim Robin Stoller: Short Response*


They played a couple of cases of antisemite cards.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noura Erakat: Oppose Israeli apartheid & annexation of Palestine*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Noura Erakat: Oppose Israeli apartheid & annexation of Palestine*



In the farewell video on the way to attack,
Ahmed didn't mention anything about Israel,
but that the family suspected him of being _"a collaborator",_

One has to ask if this immediate press release was scripted as a coverup for the family...
And about the security arrangements, did this oligarch princess ever asked her uncle, 
Chief PLO Negotiator, about his part in the whole arrangement?

Or she just enjoys spending in America off of what the PLO steal from the people?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*4th Education Webinar: Anti-Zionism vs. Anti-Semitism*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *4th Education Webinar: Anti-Zionism vs. Anti-Semitism*



An "Educational webinar" on anti-Zionism, and not a single Zionist in the discussion.

This is not even nearly a setting for an intelligent conversation.

Why are these guys so chicken to face real opposition?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I am really interested in hearing how the ICC addresses the complaint.

*(COMMENT)*
​◈  I'm not sure that The West Bank _(Ramallah Government)_ can even make a legitimate complaint against Israel.  The Palestinian Party in Power made it plain that _(as an example)_: ​•  "Murdering 12 Israeli children and 25 adults was a "natural human expression that all human laws guarantee." ​•  The Association of Palestinian Scholars issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious legal ruling - entitled "The ruling of Islam concerning normalization with the Zionist enemy occupying the land of Palestine." ​✦  That act itself violates International Humanitarian Law.​✦  Making such an official statement is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights against incitement.​✦  Paying stipends to the criminal actors is a violation of International Authorities to hold those who finance terrorism criminally _(whether directly or indirectly)_, civilly or administratively liable for such support.​​◈   I'm not sure that the ICC has the authority to rule on Israeli (non-member) boundaries issues.​​◈   I'm not so sure that the exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank insulates the ICC from certain actions.​​◈   I'm not sure that the mere signature by a government _(Ramallah)_, that supports or cooperates with terrorism _[Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS of Gaza)]_ and other criminal activity, has the right to delegate to any international court jurisdiction of any sort. The Ramallah Government and the Gaza Government has some sort of working arrangement of mutual support. HAMAS is on the European Union (EU)(Continental Europe • 27 members) Terrorism List, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem.’  Can the ICC (Party #1) act as the Prosecutor to explicitly further the credibility behind the Hostile activities of the Arab Palestinians (Party #2) against Israel (Party #3) operating against a designated terrorist organization (by the EU)(Party #4)?​​◈   And if the ICC can maintain legal, ethical, and moral credibility by cooperating with a designated terrorist organization, does that run afoul of the Monetary Gold Principle?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene, in the operations of a country, functioning under the Hague Regulation Article 43?​​◈   Does the ICC have any obligation to act in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by judicial tolerance and cooperation in the institutions by terrorists and their supporters?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene in Israeli Prosecutions under Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention when the Arab Palestinians:​​✦  Commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or Murder?​
I find the rumors disturbing - IF TRUE, that members of HAMAS and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are working with the ICC.  Is there the appearance of collusion?  Is the parent International legal system itself, concerned at all that the appearance of impropriety will contribute to the erosion of international confidence in the system?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I am really interested in hearing how the ICC addresses the complaint.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​◈  I'm not sure that The West Bank _(Ramallah Government)_ can even make a legitimate complaint against Israel.  The Palestinian Party in Power made it plain that _(as an example)_: ​•  "Murdering 12 Israeli children and 25 adults was a "natural human expression that all human laws guarantee." ​•  The Association of Palestinian Scholars issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious legal ruling - entitled "The ruling of Islam concerning normalization with the Zionist enemy occupying the land of Palestine." ​✦  That act itself violates International Humanitarian Law.​✦  Making such an official statement is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights against incitement.​✦  Paying stipends to the criminal actors is a violation of International Authorities to hold those who finance terrorism criminally _(whether directly or indirectly)_, civilly or administratively liable for such support.​​◈   I'm not sure that the ICC has the authority to rule on Israeli (non-member) boundaries issues.​​◈   I'm not so sure that the exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank insulates the ICC from certain actions.​​◈   I'm not sure that the mere signature by a government _(Ramallah)_, that supports or cooperates with terrorism _[Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS of Gaza)]_ and other criminal activity, has the right to delegate to any international court jurisdiction of any sort. The Ramallah Government and the Gaza Government has some sort of working arrangement of mutual support. HAMAS is on the European Union (EU)(Continental Europe • 27 members) Terrorism List, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem.’  Can the ICC (Party #1) act as the Prosecutor to explicitly further the credibility behind the Hostile activities of the Arab Palestinians (Party #2) against Israel (Party #3) operating against a designated terrorist organization (by the EU)(Party #4)?​​◈   And if the ICC can maintain legal, ethical, and moral credibility by cooperating with a designated terrorist organization, does that run afoul of the Monetary Gold Principle?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene, in the operations of a country, functioning under the Hague Regulation Article 43?​​◈   Does the ICC have any obligation to act in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by judicial tolerance and cooperation in the institutions by terrorists and their supporters?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene in Israeli Prosecutions under Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention when the Arab Palestinians:​​✦  Commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or Murder?​
> I find the rumors disturbing - IF TRUE, that members of HAMAS and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are working with the ICC.  Is there the appearance of collusion?  Is the parent International legal system itself, concerned at all that the appearance of impropriety will contribute to the erosion of international confidence in the system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Terrorism is an Israeli propaganda concept.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*American Jews & Israel: A Faltering Relationship with Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb & Allan Brownfeld*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I am really interested in hearing how the ICC addresses the complaint.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​◈  I'm not sure that The West Bank _(Ramallah Government)_ can even make a legitimate complaint against Israel.  The Palestinian Party in Power made it plain that _(as an example)_: ​•  "Murdering 12 Israeli children and 25 adults was a "natural human expression that all human laws guarantee." ​•  The Association of Palestinian Scholars issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious legal ruling - entitled "The ruling of Islam concerning normalization with the Zionist enemy occupying the land of Palestine." ​✦  That act itself violates International Humanitarian Law.​✦  Making such an official statement is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights against incitement.​✦  Paying stipends to the criminal actors is a violation of International Authorities to hold those who finance terrorism criminally _(whether directly or indirectly)_, civilly or administratively liable for such support.​​◈   I'm not sure that the ICC has the authority to rule on Israeli (non-member) boundaries issues.​​◈   I'm not so sure that the exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank insulates the ICC from certain actions.​​◈   I'm not sure that the mere signature by a government _(Ramallah)_, that supports or cooperates with terrorism _[Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS of Gaza)]_ and other criminal activity, has the right to delegate to any international court jurisdiction of any sort. The Ramallah Government and the Gaza Government has some sort of working arrangement of mutual support. HAMAS is on the European Union (EU)(Continental Europe • 27 members) Terrorism List, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem.’  Can the ICC (Party #1) act as the Prosecutor to explicitly further the credibility behind the Hostile activities of the Arab Palestinians (Party #2) against Israel (Party #3) operating against a designated terrorist organization (by the EU)(Party #4)?​​◈   And if the ICC can maintain legal, ethical, and moral credibility by cooperating with a designated terrorist organization, does that run afoul of the Monetary Gold Principle?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene, in the operations of a country, functioning under the Hague Regulation Article 43?​​◈   Does the ICC have any obligation to act in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by judicial tolerance and cooperation in the institutions by terrorists and their supporters?​​◈   Does the ICC have the authority to intervene in Israeli Prosecutions under Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention when the Arab Palestinians:​​✦  Commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces?​✦  Commit an offense that constitutes espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or Murder?​
> I find the rumors disturbing - IF TRUE, that members of HAMAS and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are working with the ICC.  Is there the appearance of collusion?  Is the parent International legal system itself, concerned at all that the appearance of impropriety will contribute to the erosion of international confidence in the system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is an Israeli propaganda concept.
Click to expand...


Would you agree that attacking another country with the intention of killing civilians in order to achieve a political and/or religious goal is terrorism ?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Even in the 1930s, terrorism was considered to be "criminal acts" directed against a target audience with the intent to create "enhanced fear" planted in the minds of the people in proximity of an easily accessed area and densely populated areas.




P F Tinmore said:


> Terrorism is an Israeli propaganda concept.


*(COMMENT)*

"Terrorism" is NOT a "propaganda concept;" but, rather a hostile activity.  It is the propaganda that incites hostile action.

You can test that by merely substituting  any of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters in place of "terrorist."  




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Even in the 1930s, terrorism was considered to be "criminal acts" directed against a target audience with the intent to create "enhanced fear" planted in the minds of the people in proximity of an easily accessed area and densely populated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is an Israeli propaganda concept.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Terrorism" is NOT a "propaganda concept;" but, rather a hostile activity.  It is the propaganda that incites hostile action.
> 
> You can test that by merely substituting  any of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters in place of "terrorist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Palestinian self defense is terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Headline -- *‘Nothing Can Justify Terrorism — Ever,’ Says Secretary-General, as Security*  ...  There is no such thing as a justifiable campaign of terrorism; NONE*!*




P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian self defense is terrorism.


*(COMMENT)*

While the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) make all sorts of claims to justify Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, NONE of them are valid.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to commit any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power  →  or degrade public order and safety.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations, and may jeopardize the security of any State.   The HoAP may NOT use or threaten the use of violence, as a strategy to achieve certain political ends or objectives... _t aims to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and does not conform with humanitarian rules... 

While the HoAP ignore their *obligation to prohibit all advocacy that constitutes incitement *to discrimination, hostility or violence __(“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (“CCPR”), they do so just the same.  They are people → only governed by the limits of their criminal minds.

Forget those videos on You-Tube Videos that the HoAP use to promote violence or Fatwa written by immoral Islamic clerics that justify the deliberate attack soft targets → open to members of the public of all ages, → open to members of the public and encompasses any commercial, business,  cultural, historical,  educational, religious, entertainment, recreational or similar place.

*(∑ Ω)*_

For far too long have the HoAP been allowed to make the claims that they are somehow justified to use terrorism do to the lack of accomplishments in diplomacy and failure in achieving any measure of Friendly Relations and Co-operation with Israel towards a permanent solution for peace.

_


Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Even in the 1930s, terrorism was considered to be "criminal acts" directed against a target audience with the intent to create "enhanced fear" planted in the minds of the people in proximity of an easily accessed area and densely populated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is an Israeli propaganda concept.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Terrorism" is NOT a "propaganda concept;" but, rather a hostile activity.  It is the propaganda that incites hostile action.
> 
> You can test that by merely substituting  any of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, or Asymmetric Fighters in place of "terrorist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinian self defense is terrorism.
Click to expand...

Offensive gee-had attacks are not self defense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Headline -- *‘Nothing Can Justify Terrorism — Ever,’ Says Secretary-General, as Security*  ...  There is no such thing as a justifiable campaign of terrorism; NONE*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian self defense is terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) make all sorts of claims to justify Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, NONE of them are valid.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to commit any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power  →  or degrade public order and safety.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations, and may jeopardize the security of any State.   The HoAP may NOT use or threaten the use of violence, as a strategy to achieve certain political ends or objectives... _t aims to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and does not conform with humanitarian rules...
> 
> While the HoAP ignore their *obligation to prohibit all advocacy that constitutes incitement *to discrimination, hostility or violence __(“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (“CCPR”), they do so just the same.  They are people → only governed by the limits of their criminal minds.
> 
> Forget those videos on You-Tube Videos that the HoAP use to promote violence or Fatwa written by immoral Islamic clerics that justify the deliberate attack soft targets → open to members of the public of all ages, → open to members of the public and encompasses any commercial, business,  cultural, historical,  educational, religious, entertainment, recreational or similar place.
> 
> *(∑ Ω)*_
> 
> For far too long have the HoAP been allowed to make the claims that they are somehow justified to use terrorism do to the lack of accomplishments in diplomacy and failure in achieving any measure of Friendly Relations and Co-operation with Israel towards a permanent solution for peace.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

You can't post without sliming the Palestinians.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Headline -- *‘Nothing Can Justify Terrorism — Ever,’ Says Secretary-General, as Security*  ...  There is no such thing as a justifiable campaign of terrorism; NONE*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian self defense is terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) make all sorts of claims to justify Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, NONE of them are valid.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to commit any offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power  →  or degrade public order and safety.  The HoAP have NO special dispensation to endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations, and may jeopardize the security of any State.   The HoAP may NOT use or threaten the use of violence, as a strategy to achieve certain political ends or objectives... _t aims to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and does not conform with humanitarian rules...
> 
> While the HoAP ignore their *obligation to prohibit all advocacy that constitutes incitement *to discrimination, hostility or violence __(“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (“CCPR”), they do so just the same.  They are people → only governed by the limits of their criminal minds.
> 
> Forget those videos on You-Tube Videos that the HoAP use to promote violence or Fatwa written by immoral Islamic clerics that justify the deliberate attack soft targets → open to members of the public of all ages, → open to members of the public and encompasses any commercial, business,  cultural, historical,  educational, religious, entertainment, recreational or similar place.
> 
> *(∑ Ω)*_
> 
> For far too long have the HoAP been allowed to make the claims that they are somehow justified to use terrorism do to the lack of accomplishments in diplomacy and failure in achieving any measure of Friendly Relations and Co-operation with Israel towards a permanent solution for peace.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't post without sliming the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

BLUF causes your hurt feelings?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



So they're pissed that Zoom refused to air their deranged "academic" bigotry,
and instead went complaining on Youtube telling us how _"hijacking planes is fun"_??

All the proof needed for why these sociopaths don't belong in education.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns*



They virtue signal inclusivity by talking about indigenous Palestinian Jews,
but will keep quiet about expelling those Jews from all the holy cities.

Then they go demanding another Sharia state,
while banging about how "this is not a religious conflict"...


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Settler Colonialism from America to Palestine  - Walter Hixson*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
⁜→  rylah,  P F Tinmore, et al,

I have to agree with rylah.  _(When it comes to the Palestinians - what you think you heard is not what you think was said.)_

*BLUF:* My experience has been that when an Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian says the key element to the conflict is "Freedom/Self-Determination," they mean it selectively applies to them _(not the Israelis)_. Similarly, when an Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian says there is no hostile religious content to the conflict, they say it not about Islam, they explain it is about "Zionist" expansion.  The latent meaning _(of course) _being - it is all about those select Jews that believe in the development and protection of the _Jewish National Home_ in what is now the State of Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns





rylah said:


> They virtue signal inclusivity by talking about indigenous Palestinian Jews,
> but will keep quiet about expelling those Jews from all the holy cities.
> 
> Then they go demanding another Sharia state,
> while banging about how "this is not a religious conflict"...


_*(∑ Ω)*_

What many people miss in the discussion is that there is religious content to the conflict.  It is not exclusive, but that there was a Jihadist call to arms, there have been Fatwahs (religious rulings) written for the killing of both Jews and Americans → both civilian and military.  In fact, it was not all that long ago (2015) a Jordanian Cleric (Sheikh Halabi) was made to recant the Fatwa AGAINST the killing of Jews by an angry backlash from the Muslim-world.

When the Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian speak of "indigenous" Jews or Arabs, the hiddden agenda it to prop-up the three unspoken claims:
​◈  Jews are European invaders.​​◈  Jews practice apartheid.​​◈  Jews are colonial peoples.​
_

_
_ Most Respectfully,
 R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When the Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian speak of "indigenous" Jews or Arabs, the hiddden agenda it to prop-up the three unspoken claims:
> ◈ Jews are European invaders.◈ Jews practice apartheid.◈ Jews are colonial peoples.


OK, and?

But they rarely use the term Jew.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Settler Colonialism from America to Palestine  - Walter Hixson*



Indeed American and Arab settler colonialism
have a number of similarities.

However most Americans know how to say Milwaukee,
and built one of the most free and prosperous human societies.

While Arabs don't contribute much to progress,
and most still haven't learned to pronounce "Palestine".


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> What many people miss in the discussion is that there is religious content to the conflict.


Not really. The Palestinians would treat any other colonial power the same.


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→  rylah,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have to agree with rylah.  _(When it comes to the Palestinians - what you think you heard is not what you think was said.)_
> 
> *BLUF:* My experience has been that when an Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian says the key element to the conflict is "Freedom/Self-Determination," they mean it selectively applies to them _(not the Israelis)_. Similarly, when an Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian says there is no hostile religious content to the conflict, they say it not about Islam, they explain it is about "Zionist" expansion.  The latent meaning _(of course) _being - it is all about those select Jews that believe in the development and protection of the _Jewish National Home_ in what is now the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They virtue signal inclusivity by talking about indigenous Palestinian Jews,
> but will keep quiet about expelling those Jews from all the holy cities.
> 
> Then they go demanding another Sharia state,
> while banging about how "this is not a religious conflict"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*(∑ Ω)*_
> 
> What many people miss in the discussion is that there is religious content to the conflict.  It is not exclusive, but that there was a Jihadist call to arms, there have been Fatwahs (religious rulings) written for the killing of both Jews and Americans → both civilian and military.  In fact, it was not all that long ago (2015) a Jordanian Cleric (Sheikh Halabi) was made to recant the Fatwa AGAINST the killing of Jews by an angry backlash from the Muslim-world.
> 
> When the Arab Palestinian or pro-Arab Palestinian speak of "indigenous" Jews or Arabs, the hiddden agenda it to prop-up the three unspoken claims:
> ​◈  Jews are European invaders.​​◈  Jews practice apartheid.​​◈  Jews are colonial peoples.​
> _
> 
> _
> _ Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...


During the Ottoman Caliphate, these people expelled Jews from all of their holy cities,
following waves of Arab pogroms all over the Caliphate.

When later betraying the Caliphate they helped Britain invade,
they literally declared a 'Holy War' on the Jews,
with pierced Star of David being as emblem.











Now and that's before I'm even mentioning "nuances"
like forced conversion and marriage of Jewish girls if their father died.

These people have literally declared a 'holy war',
and they have no one but themselves.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What many people miss in the discussion is that there is religious content to the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. The Palestinians would treat any other colonial power the same.
Click to expand...


They themselves are one,
that's exactly the meaning of 'Palestine'.

If only the stooges could pronounce that,
let alone learn what that name means in the local language.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Power of Seed in Occupied Land*
Vivien Sansour,


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
⁜→   et al,

In the coming weeks, we might see some movement on the "Question of Palestine."  Typically, during the period mid-November and the first half of December, issues specifically about the Israel-Arab Palestinian Conflict are addressed.

I don't have much confidence in the International Criminal Court (ICC), to be non-partisan.  I see a tremendous urge to politically persecute and economically sanction.  I see legal opinions that completely disregard certain perspectives simply because they tend to support a pro-Israeli position.

It will be most interesting to see just how the Court falls on the many questions concerning Arab Palestinian activities in the past, and how they affect allegations being made in the complaint.

And!  It will be interesting to see if the Court actually accepts the argument that there is actually a sovereign State of Palestine; and what that might include.

_


 Most Respectfully,_
_ R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


More of Israel's terrorism shtick.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course, discussions are always welcome.
> ⁜→   et al,
> 
> In the coming weeks, we might see some movement on the "Question of Palestine."  Typically, during the period mid-November and the first half of December, issues specifically about the Israel-Arab Palestinian Conflict are addressed.
> 
> I don't have much confidence in the International Criminal Court (ICC), to be non-partisan.  I see a tremendous urge to politically persecute and economically sanction.  I see legal opinions that completely disregard certain perspectives simply because they tend to support a pro-Israeli position.
> 
> It will be most interesting to see just how the Court falls on the many questions concerning Arab Palestinian activities in the past, and how they affect allegations being made in the complaint.
> 
> And!  It will be interesting to see if the Court actually accepts the argument that there is actually a sovereign State of Palestine; and what that might include.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,_
> _ R_


The enforcement of law is determined by politics. So it will be interesting to see where this goes.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of Israel's terrorism shtick.
Click to expand...

More of your piffle.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why Black People Should Care About Palestinian Liberation | A Word | The Root*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Stream - #BlackLivesMatter stands up for Palestine*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Stream - #BlackLivesMatter stands up for Palestine*



BLM rioters, thieves and lowlifes “stand up” for Pali terrorists.

Lovely.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## rylah

Is that why "Palestinian" Arabs never allowed an African
into any of their governments?

Let alone Jews of course...

Wonder how racist bigots who resort to framing everything in skin-color hierarchy,
don't see apartheid in that. They just assume that "naturally".

What a coincidence.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


I’m hoping you can dump this into the thread a few dozen more times.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m hoping you can dump this into the thread a few dozen more times.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have not seen it yet.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m hoping you can dump this into the thread a few dozen more times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people have not seen it yet.
Click to expand...

You’re hoping to increase your spam count?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: If you are of the pro-Palestinian Camp, this is a panel of like-minded people are set to inspire enthusiasm for a renewed effort in solidarity. But nothing more. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Solidarity and Activism Beyond 2020


*(COMMENT)*

If you are interested in the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement by people who want their individual name and brand spread-out in the niche media, then this is useful.  If not, well, you will probably find it about as much fun as an Ohio State student at a Michigan Pep Rally.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: If you are of the pro-Palestinian Camp, this is a panel of like-minded people are set to inspire enthusiasm for a renewed effort in solidarity. But nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solidarity and Activism Beyond 2020
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you are interested in the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement by people who want their individual name and brand spread-out in the niche media, then this is useful.  If not, well, you will probably find it about as much fun as an Ohio State student at a Michigan Pep Rally.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I noticed that you did not address any of the issues in this presentation. I post these things to spark debate yet nobody wants to discuss the issues.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"Reclaiming Judaism from Zionism -Stories of Personal Transformation"*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Blaming the Jews: Politics and Delusion, with Bernard Harrison*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*DR. OSAMAH F. KHALIL ON ISRAEL'S APARTHEID POLICIES*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The videos are (respectively: 1'52" (Multiple Doctorate Level Contributors) - 1'28" (Video Panel from the Palestine Center) - 47" (Film Indorsement as an Important Peice) - 32" (New Broadcast excerpt), which are big guns even in a focus question situation.



P F Tinmore said:


> I noticed that you did not address any of the issues in this presentation. I post these things to spark debate yet nobody wants to discuss the issues.


*(COMMENT)*

In most of the "presentations" you post, I see them as a baited trap.  They are not assembled or very adaptable to "responses" on specific interrogatives, policy issues, or addressing specific events.

I find it even more difficult to have a meanigful exchange with a video that is over an hour-long, - or - not relavent to contemproary times.  If YOU want to engage in a discussion; ask a focused question on a sliver of information.  It is YOU that most often accuse me of not being specific, or giving a response that contains too much information, and is outside YOUR ability to connect with.

Give me a specific Point of Information (POI) that you want me to address; but, I (as does everyone else) reserve the right to "answer" or "decline" on the matter of a resposne.  Like many of the participants in the discussion group, most of us remain confident in the face of these videos.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The videos are (respectively: 1'52" (Multiple Doctorate Level Contributors) - 1'28" (Video Panel from the Palestine Center) - 47" (Film Indorsement as an Important Peice) - 32" (New Broadcast excerpt), which are big guns even in a focus question situation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you did not address any of the issues in this presentation. I post these things to spark debate yet nobody wants to discuss the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In most of the "presentations" you post, I see them as a baited trap.  They are not assembled or very adaptable to "responses" on specific interrogatives, policy issues, or addressing specific events.
> 
> I find it even more difficult to have a meanigful exchange with a video that is over an hour-long, - or - not relavent to contemproary times.  If YOU want to engage in a discussion; ask a focused question on a sliver of information.  It is YOU that most often accuse me of not being specific, or giving a response that contains too much information, and is outside YOUR ability to connect with.
> 
> Give me a specific Point of Information (POI) that you want me to address; but, I (as does everyone else) reserve the right to "answer" or "decline" on the matter of a resposne.  Like many of the participants in the discussion group, most of us remain confident in the face of these videos.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> If YOU want to engage in a discussion; ask a focused question on a sliver of information. It is YOU that most often accuse me of not being specific, or giving a response that contains too much information, and is outside YOUR ability to connect with.


Says the guy who posts whole pages of smoke when asked a simple question.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*SUPPLEMENTAL*​*(COMMENT)*

As an example, in just the first 3 minutes of the 112-minute presentation video (Israel Apartheid Policies) by Dr O F Khalil he opened with:

◈  The Annexation Plans to Annex the Greater Jordan Valley being "postponed" and not "cancelled" as something significant in the matter of "Apartheid."  Dr Khalil never connects the cause or effect of this distinction with the concept of "Apartheid."
✦  Whines about the 53 years of Occupation and the 70 Years of Dispossession being done in full view of the International Community.​✦  Complains about the ever creeping policy of Annexation.​✦  The extensively documented Israeli wrongful acts by the ​•  Human Rights Community​•  The International Court of Justice (ICJ)​•  Condemnation by the UN Security Council​
◈  The presentation complains that Israel enforces laws and policies that Israel counter-claims do not exist.
✦  This practice, Dr Khalil claims, attempts to shield Israel from International Criticism.​✦  The distinctions that Israel makes between:​•  Municipal Fusion 'vs' Annexation​•  Disputed Territories (diplomatic term) 'vs' Occupied Territories (military term)​
LAST but NOT LEAST
◈  Take the Maximum amount of land with the least amount of Arab Palestinians. (Post-67 War)
 Dr Khalil links this to the settlement Project.

As I said, that was just in the first three minutes.  Just imagine how long my commentary would be if I listed and responded to every POI presented in just the first quarter-hour_*!*_

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



RoccoR said:


> If YOU want to engage in a discussion; ask a focused question on a sliver of information. It is YOU that most often accuse me of not being specific, or giving a response that contains too much information, and is outside YOUR ability to connect with.





P F Tinmore said:


> Says the guy who posts whole pages of smoke when asked a simple question.


*(COMMENT)*

And what specifically does your one-liner respond?

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ The Annexation Plans to Annex the Greater Jordan Valley being "postponed" and not "cancelled" as something significant in the matter of "Apartheid." Dr Khalil never connects the cause or effect of this distinction with the concept of "Apartheid."


Israel uses apartheid practices to annex the Jordan Valley.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ Whines about the 53 years of Occupation and the 70 Years of Dispossession being done in full view of the International Community.


I would say 70 years of disposession and occupation, but we don't all read the same books.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ Complains about the ever creeping policy of Annexation.


Settlements are creeping annexation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ The Annexation Plans to Annex the Greater Jordan Valley being "postponed" and not "cancelled" as something significant in the matter of "Apartheid." Dr Khalil never connects the cause or effect of this distinction with the concept of "Apartheid."
> 
> 
> 
> Israel uses apartheid practices to annex the Jordan Valley.
Click to expand...

Your slogans are a hoot.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ Complains about the ever creeping policy of Annexation.
> 
> 
> 
> Settlements are creeping annexation.
Click to expand...

Settlements are improving the neighborhood with a modern, educated population.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Dr. Hatem Bazian Conversation with Dr. Hanan Ashrawi: Annexation, Occupation & the Consequences*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Truth to Power and Power’s Untruth: Challenging Silencing Strategies in the Palestinian Struggle*


----------



## Hollie

Islamic ideology is a 1,400 year history of oppression and subjugation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Islamic ideology is a 1,400 year history of oppression and subjugation.



Honest Reporting? That is quite a misnomer they have there.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have selective hearing.



Hollie said:


> Islamic ideology is a 1,400 year history of oppression and subjugation.





P F Tinmore said:


> Honest Reporting? That is quite a misnomer they have there.


*(COMMENT)*

I hear Noura Arakat _esq_, Assistant Professor and Human Rights Attorney, clealy agreed that the HAMAS Rocket Attacks were _(and continue to be)_ a violation of Customary and International Human Rights Law (IHL) _[Rule #11:  Indiscriminate Fire Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I]_.  And this opened the argument that HAMAS is using Human Shields.

The Human Shield issue (Rule #97) is actually an outcome of the twin violations of deliberately locating legitimate targets in the vicinity of populated areas and the failure to remove civilians from the vicinity of such legitimate targets _(Rules #23 and #24, respectively)_.

I think it was a reasonable discussion on both sides.  And of course, both sides disagree with the other.  You will notice that Professor Erakat got the last word.  So I don't think the supporting elements for the Hostile Activity by the Arab Palestinians, was mistreated in this regard.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I hear Noura Arakat _esq_, Assistant Professor and Human Rights Attorney, clealy agreed that the HAMAS Rocket Attacks were _(and continue to be)_ a violation of Customary and International Human Rights Law (IHL) _[Rule #11:_


I don't agree with Nora Arakat, or anybody else, 100%. Abbas asked Hamas about their possible prosecution before filing his complaint. Hamas gave him the green light.

Hamas, and many Palestinians in Palestine, have a different view of Israel than some of those in the west. Perhaps they feel that they have a good defense. I believe that they do.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear Noura Arakat _esq_, Assistant Professor and Human Rights Attorney, clealy agreed that the HAMAS Rocket Attacks were _(and continue to be)_ a violation of Customary and International Human Rights Law (IHL) _[Rule #11:_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Nora Arakat, or anybody else, 100%. Abbas asked Hamas about their possible prosecution before filing his complaint. Hamas gave him the green light.
> 
> Hamas, and many Palestinians in Palestine, have a different view of Israel than some of those in the west. Perhaps they feel that they have a good defense. I believe that they do.
Click to expand...


Why can't you be as fair to Arab Palestinians
who express support for Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel's Interference in the U.S. Criminal Justice System*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"6 Reasons Why... One State Would Work, And Should Work, Very Well."*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ Whines about the 53 years of Occupation and the 70 Years of Dispossession being done in full view of the International Community.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say 70 years of disposession and occupation, but we don't all read the same books.
Click to expand...

Your Koran clouds the mind.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *"6 Reasons Why... One State Would Work, And Should Work, Very Well."*



One state solution will work,
but exactly because of the opposite of what he believes.

For someone who starts with "we want secular state without ethnic or racial supremacy",
hequiet easily spouts ridiculous racist stereotypes about skin color and "Arab land".

But this is just the kind of pan-Arab propaganda that makes them ever clueless,
as to why they keep degrading and failing so much in spite all these ridiculous tirades about the "Arab woumb about to take over Jerusalem, Madrid, Washington and Rome".

Or how Soviet immigrants are building churches allover Israel, and former dhimmi Jews, whom they've just expelled and now pretentiously call "Arab Jews" are converting to Islam
in droves  and just would love to go back to the days of being a minority under Arab rule.

Heard all that pan-Arab imperialist nonesense.
This maybe helps a hurt ego, thumping that song in unison for 7 decades....
but all it does is keep one stuck on the false promises that cause their impotency.

But leave aside, this comedian guy.

*I just wonder if you can actually fathom, 
that between the river and the sea, there're more Arabs who learn Hebrew, 
and there're more Arabs who want Israel to have full sovereignty than vice versa?*

What happens when you realize that the false narrative of Arab vs Jewish birthrates,
is just an old stereotype, and the the supposed threat of "one state solution",
and "refugees" actually plays in Israel's favor?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"6 Reasons Why... One State Would Work, And Should Work, Very Well."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state solution will work,
> but exactly because of the opposite of what he believes.
> 
> For someone who starts with "we want secular state without ethnic or racial supremacy",
> hequiet easily spouts ridiculous racist stereotypes about skin color and "Arab land".
> 
> But this is just the kind of pan-Arab propaganda that makes them ever clueless,
> as to why they keep degrading and failing so much in spite all these ridiculous tirades about the "Arab woumb about to take over Jerusalem, Madrid, Washington and Rome".
> 
> Or how Soviet immigrants are building churches allover Israel, and former dhimmi Jews, whom they've just expelled and now pretentiously call "Arab Jews" are converting to Islam
> in droves  and just would love to go back to the days of being a minority under Arab rule.
> 
> Heard all that pan-Arab imperialist nonesense.
> This maybe helps a hurt ego, thumping that song in unison for 7 decades....
> but all it does is keep one stuck on the false promises that cause their impotency.
> 
> But leave aside, this comedian guy.
> 
> *I just wonder if you can actually fathom,
> that between the river and the sea, there're more Arabs who learn Hebrew,
> and there're more Arabs who want Israel to have full sovereignty than vice versa?*
Click to expand...

He gave his vision.

What is yours?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"6 Reasons Why... One State Would Work, And Should Work, Very Well."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state solution will work,
> but exactly because of the opposite of what he believes.
> 
> For someone who starts with "we want secular state without ethnic or racial supremacy",
> hequiet easily spouts ridiculous racist stereotypes about skin color and "Arab land".
> 
> But this is just the kind of pan-Arab propaganda that makes them ever clueless,
> as to why they keep degrading and failing so much in spite all these ridiculous tirades about the "Arab woumb about to take over Jerusalem, Madrid, Washington and Rome".
> 
> Or how Soviet immigrants are building churches allover Israel, and former dhimmi Jews, whom they've just expelled and now pretentiously call "Arab Jews" are converting to Islam
> in droves  and just would love to go back to the days of being a minority under Arab rule.
> 
> Heard all that pan-Arab imperialist nonesense.
> This maybe helps a hurt ego, thumping that song in unison for 7 decades....
> but all it does is keep one stuck on the false promises that cause their impotency.
> 
> But leave aside, this comedian guy.
> 
> *I just wonder if you can actually fathom,
> that between the river and the sea, there're more Arabs who learn Hebrew,
> and there're more Arabs who want Israel to have full sovereignty than vice versa?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave his vision.
> 
> What is yours?
Click to expand...


All that talk about "Arab land" and skin color,
is the Palestinian vision of "one state solution"?

Sounds like plain racist bigotry...

My vision is to engage the young generation of Israelis,
to experiment with building their own new 'smart cities' in the Negev Desert.

Isn't that a cool idea?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Leila Khaled joins ILPS to launch month of action for Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



"Jews shoud get off the way..."
she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.

Just that of all people on earth, 
everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.

Does it make sense to you?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Israel- The more you know, the less you like.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
Click to expand...


That is because you refuse to know anything,
that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.

And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
Click to expand...

I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
Click to expand...


See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.

So what does it say about the validity of your position,
if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
Click to expand...

If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Click to expand...

Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
Click to expand...






__





						Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"
Click to expand...

Look through wiki for Israel’s demographics. It’s not an exclusive Jewish state. Let us know what you find.


----------



## Hollie

Abbas wants 'not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state
					

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks due to resume in Washington for the first time in nearly three years.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look through wiki for Israel’s demographics. It’s not an exclusive Jewish state. Let us know what you find.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of Israel is noted.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look through wiki for Israel’s demographics. It’s not an exclusive Jewish state. Let us know what you find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance of Israel is noted.
Click to expand...

I anticipated you would respond with your usual nonsense.

Here Is the demographic data that despite your hurt feelings, refutes your nonsense “precedent” comment.









						Israel People Facts & Stats
					

Find out how Israel ranks internationally on People. Get the facts and compare to other countries!



					www.nationmaster.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look through wiki for Israel’s demographics. It’s not an exclusive Jewish state. Let us know what you find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance of Israel is noted.
Click to expand...


Actually he's correct,
the word 'exclusive' is found nowhere in the Nation Bill.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ardently defended his draft of the Nation-State bill on 26 November 2014. Netanyahu declared Israel to be "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look through wiki for Israel’s demographics. It’s not an exclusive Jewish state. Let us know what you find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance of Israel is noted.
Click to expand...

^^^ The usual drop ten and drop another ten. Off he goes to look for more nonsense claims.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Click to expand...


But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
or simply based on a false premise.

And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?

How is this not hypocricy?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Our forum is a type of unstructured debate. And in any debate, we present our arguments and listen to opposing points of view.



P F Tinmore said:


> I post from a wide variety of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

In our debates_ (generally a set of deductive arguments)_, we have a very wide and diverse set of participants representing a multitude of perspectives.  

As long as your sources have some legitimate _(both Sound and Valid - S&V)_ point of view (POV) the origin of perspective is unimportant (nearly irrelevant).  A characteristic of our discussions is the attempt at justification for one side or the other → wherein the premises contained are believed to be true.  

*(OBSERVATION)*

In many of our discussions, the premises _(statements)_ contained within the_ (political)_ arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical _(and truthful)_ conclusion.  *Why?* Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion _(the statements are considered politically contaminated)_. As an example:

◈  The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS -_ including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades_)_(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood)_ are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true.  The argument that HAMAS is "designated" as a "terrorist Organization" by America, Canada, the European Union _(27 Member Nations)_, and Saudi Arabia.  ​
This differentiation and lack of universal acceptance creates a just enough controversy as to complicate the meanings of "unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable."  And in the case of Israel 'vs' Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) casts a shadow on the meaning of "supporting terrorist organizations."  

A similar complication arises in the meaning of the "State of Palestine" and the differentiation and lack of universal acceptance as to the territory the Arab Palestinians claim as sovereign under the banner: "State of Palestine."   Who represents the "State of Palestine" and what does it claim as its territory.  As an example:

◈  Some officials claim that the Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” and since then the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has represents the State of Palestine at the United Nations, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."​​✦  Affirms  that  the  status  of  the  Palestinian  territory  occupied  since  1967,  including  East  Jerusalem.​​✦  The PLO claim by charter that  →  Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​​◈   Territory of States -- International Law​​✦  TERRITORY DEFINED:  Territory in international law means any area of the earth’s surface which is the subject of sovereign rights and interests.  It is a definite part of the surface of the earth where the state normally exercises jurisdiction over persons or things to the exclusion of another state.​​✦  TERRITORY DEFINED:  The domain of a state therefore may be described as:​✧ Terrestrial​✧ Fluvial or maritime​✧ Aerial​​This demonstrates the the nature of the gap between the various factions.

*( ∑Ω )*

◈  The  definition  of  a  crime  shall  be  strictly  construed  and  shall  not  be  extended  by  analogy.​​◈  In  case  of  ambiguity,  the  definition  shall  be  interpreted  in  favour  of  the  person  being  investigated,  prosecuted  or  convicted.​​There is enough here for any criminal charge to be ambiguous under the general principles of international criminal law.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
> for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?
> 
> How is this not hypocricy?
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> or simply based on a false premise.


What false premise are you talking about?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
> for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?
> 
> How is this not hypocricy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What false premise are you talking about?
Click to expand...


That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".

That's just sick.

Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.


No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.

And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
> for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?
> 
> How is this not hypocricy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What false premise are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".
> 
> That's just sick.
> 
> Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
> and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.
> 
> 
> No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
> and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.
> 
> And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
> this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection..


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In many of our discussions, the premises _(statements)_ contained within the_ (political)_ arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical _(and truthful)_ conclusion. *Why?* Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion _(the statements are considered politically contaminated)_. As an example:
> 
> ◈ The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS -_ including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades_)_(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood)_ are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true.


Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.

When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many of our discussions, the premises _(statements)_ contained within the_ (political)_ arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical _(and truthful)_ conclusion. *Why?* Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion _(the statements are considered politically contaminated)_. As an example:
> 
> ◈ The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS -_ including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades_)_(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood)_ are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true.
> 
> 
> 
> Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.
> 
> When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.
Click to expand...

Your ''hysterical twoofs'' are a hoot.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  When we examine the image and actions of the Arab Palestinians, to find the (near) truth our observations must emphasize the Arab Palestinians as an interacting population of organisms → perceiving entire patterns and organizational configurations, not merely individual components.



P F Tinmore said:


> Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.
> 
> When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinian approach to achieve their political aspirations and goals appears to make sense when examined up close or over short segments in time; but when we back away and examine the entire organism at once, or examine the timeline over many years and many decades, we see why it fails, and why it unravels.  Everything about the situation in the political world of the Arab Palestinians is illusionary.

Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not.  As if "denigrating the natives"_ (meaning the Arab Palestinians)_ is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention.   That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act.  As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do  →  holding peace hostage as a means of achieving their political objectives.  It is an illusion because they seemingly appear to justify their actions, that if used by anyone else, would be judged an unlawful act and intentional use of lethal devices against various public places with intent to kill or cause injury_ (intentionally targeting civilians or indiscriminate fire)_.

The attempt to marginalize the actions of the Arab Palestinians is an attempt to cast a cloak over the fact the Arab Palestinians engage in criminal  acts  intended  to  provoke  a response out of the Israelis  for  political purposes are →  in  any  circumstances → "unjustifiable."   The Arab Palestinian attempt to divert attention away from their criminal acts, as if the actions are legitimate  →  given special consideration of some political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify their actions.

*(ASSOCIATED POINT)*

Israel is NOT a "colonial power."  The claim or implication that Israel is a colonial power is a form of "*Fallacy of Definition."* "Colonial Power" is intended to describe a member of a given set of nations that exercises control over a dependent area or people that retains political ties and loyalty to the parent nation. Neo-colonialism (post-WWII) is the set of economic and political practices by which previous colonial powers strive to maintain their domination over a decolonized country. It also designates cultural predisposition to promote or support such practices.

The P F Tinmore application of the term "colonial power" is simply much too broad.  The Report of the Special Committee (C-24) on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2020 (*A/75/23*) demonstrated an expanded international concern on a new level _(≈ 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) under review)_: 

◈  None of them were located in the Middle East.​​✦  African Region has 1 NSGT​✦  Atlantic-Caribbean Region has 9 NSGTs​✦  European Region has 1 NSGT​✦  Pacific Region has 6 NSGTs​​​◈  Of the four Administrating Powers in the world, Israel is not one of them.​​✦  France​✦  America​✦  The United Kingdom​✦  New Zealand​
No matter how the pro-Arab Palestinian Movements twist, expand, or exaggerate the intent of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries, nothing in the Middle East fits the definition of a colonial holding or NSGT. Any attempt to suggest that there is any NSGT or colonial hold in the Middle East Region in connection with the Arab Israeli conflict is a deliberate intended to deceive the discussion group.


_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  When we examine the image and actions of the Arab Palestinians, to find the (near) truth our observations must emphasize the Arab Palestinians as an interacting population of organisms → perceiving entire patterns and organizational configurations, not merely individual components.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.
> 
> When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian approach to achieve their political aspirations and goals appears to make sense when examined up close or over short segments in time; but when we back away and examine the entire organism at once, or examine the timeline over many years and many decades, we see why it fails, and why it unravels.  Everything about the situation in the political world of the Arab Palestinians is illusionary.
> 
> Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not.  As if "denigrating the natives"_ (meaning the Arab Palestinians)_ is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention.   That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act.  As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do  →  holding peace hostage as a means of achieving their political objectives.  It is an illusion because they seemingly appear to justify their actions, that if used by anyone else, would be judged an unlawful act and intentional use of lethal devices against various public places with intent to kill or cause injury_ (intentionally targeting civilians or indiscriminate fire)_.
> 
> The attempt to marginalize the actions of the Arab Palestinians is an attempt to cast a cloak over the fact the Arab Palestinians engage in criminal  acts  intended  to  provoke  a response out of the Israelis  for  political purposes are →  in  any  circumstances → "unjustifiable."   The Arab Palestinian attempt to divert attention away from their criminal acts, as if the actions are legitimate  →  given special consideration of some political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify their actions.
> 
> *(ASSOCIATED POINT)*
> 
> Israel is NOT a "colonial power."  The claim or implication that Israel is a colonial power is a form of "*Fallacy of Definition."* "Colonial Power" is intended to describe a member of a given set of nations that exercises control over a dependent area or people that retains political ties and loyalty to the parent nation. Neo-colonialism (post-WWII) is the set of economic and political practices by which previous colonial powers strive to maintain their domination over a decolonized country. It also designates cultural predisposition to promote or support such practices.
> 
> The P F Tinmore application of the term "colonial power" is simply much too broad.  The Report of the Special Committee (C-24) on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2020 (*A/75/23*) demonstrated an expanded international concern on a new level _(≈ 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) under review)_:
> 
> ◈  None of them were located in the Middle East.​​✦  African Region has 1 NSGT​✦  Atlantic-Caribbean Region has 9 NSGTs​✦  European Region has 1 NSGT​✦  Pacific Region has 6 NSGTs​​​◈  Of the four Administrating Powers in the world, Israel is not one of them.​​✦  France​✦  America​✦  The United Kingdom​✦  New Zealand​
> No matter how the pro-Arab Palestinian Movements twist, expand, or exaggerate the intent of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries, nothing in the Middle East fits the definition of a colonial holding or NSGT. Any attempt to suggest that there is any NSGT or colonial hold in the Middle East Region in connection with the Arab Israeli conflict is a deliberate intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives"_ (meaning the Arab Palestinians)_ is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do →


Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points. Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?


From acts of Islamic terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  What makes you so sure that your perception of reality actually corresponds to the actual reality?  The Arab Palestinians always believe that they were victims of aggression.  What makes the Arab Palestinian think they are anymore exempt from Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention when it comes to punishment for:

◈  Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?​​◈  Arab Palestinians who commit espionage intended to harm the Occupying Power?​​◈  Arab Palestinians who commit serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power​​◈  Arab Palestinians who commit intentional offenses that have caused the death?​


RoccoR said:


> Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives"_ (meaning the Arab Palestinians)_ is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do →





P F Tinmore said:


> Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points. Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.
> 
> So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?


*(QUESTIONS)*

◈  Where does Israel communicate their "talking Point?"​​◈  Give me an example of an act of "Israeli aggression?"​​◈  Please define Arab Palestinian borders?​​◈  Under what authority do the Arab Palestinians assume sovereignty over the territory?​​◈  Are settlement in Area "C" illegal if full Israeli civil and security control extend across Area "C?"​​◈  Did the Arab Palestinians exercise Article XV Resolution of Disputes or the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered?​​ARTICLE XV RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993​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.​
*(COMMENT)*

Principally, the fundamental dispute begins with the Arab Palestinian insistence that the British-Franco Treaty of 1920 (Article 1) that established the boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine creates some obligation to the Arab Palestinians.  This is not true.  The Treaty which set the boundary did not create any linkage between the Mandatories and the various indigenous populations, nor did it create any self-governing institutions and place it in the hands of the local inhabitants.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?


Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.
> 
> The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.
Click to expand...

What sovereign Pali land area is occupied by Israel?

link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.



RoccoR said:


> ◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?





P F Tinmore said:


> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.
> 
> The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.


*(COMMENT)*

I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.

◈  A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013​​◈  List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel.  7 October 2012​
Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.

*₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*​
Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised.  But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue.  Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...

Choose your poison...

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

I can't wait to see this one.







I hope they post it on Youtube.









						Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice: A Panel Discussion
					

Join us to explore how to fight back against antisemitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice.



					act.jewishvoiceforpeace.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.
> 
> The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.
> 
> ◈  A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013​​◈  List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel.  7 October 2012​
> Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.
> 
> *₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*​
> Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised.  But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue.  Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...
> 
> Choose your poison...
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> ◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013


Thanks for the link. A great read.

Let's start at the top. Here are the first two.

•  Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.

•  Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I can't wait to see this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they post it on Youtube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice: A Panel Discussion
> 
> 
> Join us to explore how to fight back against antisemitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice.
> 
> 
> 
> act.jewishvoiceforpeace.org


You and the two other people who watch it should be quite the audience.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* I'll try to make this short.



RoccoR said:


> ◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013





P F Tinmore said:


> •  Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.


*(COMMENT)*

◈  A/RES/15/1514  14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

✦ Proclamation 2.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​​

 Israel does not have any requirement, stated implicitly or explicitly, to surrender its Right to Self-Determination to grant the Hostile Arab Palestinians in support of the Arab League Agressor Force some special privilege over and above that which is granted to "all peoples" _(principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples)_. [_(since you always ask) See:__“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities_]​​✦  Proclamation 5.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.​


 Israel does not have to surrender any territory covered by International Accords, or International Treaties to any Trust and Non-Self-Governing entity not having full civil and security control over that territory.​​✧  The 2005 unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip effectively abandon the Gaza Strip into the hands of whatever Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) faction filling the void and the destiny of HoAP self-determination.​​✦  Proclamation 6.  Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.​


 Israel has the UN Charter Article 51 authority to take such defensive action as may be is necessary to protect its Article 2(4) territorial integrity or political independence from actual threats and demonstrated military _(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_ action by whatever opposing force.​
◈  A/RES/25/2625  24 October 1970  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

✦   Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​​✦   Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.​​✧   PA: “We are prepared to sacrifice … we will sacrifice our ‎children"‎ | PMW Translations​​✧  PA Mufti: Sharia’h obligates every Muslim to wage Jihad ‎against what the PA calls “the thieving Jews”‎ | PMW Translations​​✧  Palestinian scholars issue a fatwa against "normalization"​​✧  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.​​✧  There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​​✧    Declassified  A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948​​• The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.​• 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.​• The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​


 Ω The primary goal of the UN and the International Laws pertaining to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict is to secure the peace.  Since the time Israel declared its independence, time after time, the first shots fired or the build-up of forces along the border constituting an imminent threat has been on the part of an Arab Party to the conflict (less the Palestinians).  There is no indication today, any more than there has been in over a half-century, that the Arab Palestinians have any intention of working towards a peaceful resolution.

The Arab Palestinians have been, for decades, demanding money from donor nations by maintaining the conflict and gaining sympathy to pour more and more annual funding into Arab Palestinian extortionist.  There is no reason to assume that any withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem would have any impact any different than that demonstrated by the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.



P F Tinmore said:


> •  Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.


*(COMMENT)*

Any attempt to use A/RES/194 (III) is entirely bogus.  There is no indication whatsoever that the Arab Palestinians actually wished to comply with the codicil that the "refugees wishing to return to their homes *and live at peace*."  Not then and not now.  The threats records in the first answer _(supra) _make that very plain.  

Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Rule 132 Return of Displaced Persons, essentially does not apply.  Every single Arab Palestinian has had citizenship from one or more governments claiming to be in control.  And the age of the "habitual residence:"  has to be over 72 years.  Even if you were born today, the life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian is 73 years.  I can't imagine what the life expectancy was for someone born in 1948.

The term "Refugee" is defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which does not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. is Convention does not apply to any person who has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality.  As you know, almost all Hostile Arab Palestinians claim to have Palestinian citizenship.

The  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Article 12(2) deals with the Right to be "free to leave any country, including his own." Article 12(4) states: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. I've not heard of a case of "Arbitrary denial."  However, a denial can be issued for* the protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others*. [See Article 12(3)] Hmmm, that pretty much denies all of those that supported HAMAS, and any of the other designated terrorist groups. And unlike 95% of the General Assembly Resolutions, the CCPR entry into force 23 March 1976.


_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✧ Declassified A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948• The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.• 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.• The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.


A must read. Thanks for the link.
Declassified  A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948 

What part of this do you disagree with? It merely asserts the Palestinian's rights particularly the right to territorial integrity.
(c) General Carlos P. Romulo, Head of the Philippines delegation, on Wednesday made a very strong and courageous speech denouncing partition declaring: “At the behest of my Government, the Philippine Republic regrets its inability to approve of or participate in a solution of the Palestine problem that would involve the encouragement of political disunion and the enforcement of measures that would amount to the territorial mutilation of the Holy Land.’

But on Saturday and in the absence of General Romulo there were two Philippines Delegates, each claiming different instructions — one to vote against partition as instructed by the head of his delegation, the other supporting partition according to fresh instructions from his Government. It is an established fact that strong pressure was put on the Philippines Government by the United States Government and, according to reliable information, the United States Government threatened the Philippines Government that it will not grant it the loan it is asking for if its delegation fails to support partition. In this way the Arabs lost the Philippines vote.​
*This speaks for itself.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.


For years you have been dancing around the issue of whose territorial integrity is being violated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.
> 
> The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.
> 
> ◈  A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013​​◈  List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel.  7 October 2012​
> Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.
> 
> *₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*​
> Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised.  But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue.  Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...
> 
> Choose your poison...
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> ◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6  11 February 2013


Thanks for the link. A great read.

Let's start at the top. Here are the first two.


•  Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.

•  Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.




RoccoR said:


> As you know, almost all Hostile Arab Palestinians claim to have Palestinian citizenship.


Palestinians are a nationality who have the right to their national territory.  Children of Palestinians have the Palestinian nationality by birth. Who has the right to take away the nationality and citizenship of anybody?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


RoccoR said:


> ✧ Declassified A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948• The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.• 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.• The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.





P F Tinmore said:


> A must read. Thanks for the link.
> Declassified  A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948
> 
> What part of this do you disagree with? It merely asserts the Palestinian's rights particularly the right to territorial integrity.
> (c) General Carlos P. Romulo, Head of the Philippines delegation, on Wednesday made a very strong and courageous speech denouncing partition declaring: “At the behest of my Government, the Philippine Republic regrets its inability to approve of or participate in a solution of the Palestine problem that would involve the encouragement of political disunion and the enforcement of measures that would amount to the territorial mutilation of the Holy Land.’​​But on Saturday and in the absence of General Romulo there were two Philippines Delegates, each claiming different instructions — one to vote against partition as instructed by the head of his delegation, the other supporting partition according to fresh instructions from his Government. It is an established fact that strong pressure was put on the Philippines Government by the United States Government and, according to reliable information, the United States Government threatened the Philippines Government that it will not grant it the loan it is asking for if its delegation fails to support partition. In this way the Arabs lost the Philippines vote.​
> *This speaks for itself.*


*(COMMENT)*

This is addressing the political wrangling.  It doesn't address the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. 
_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> For years you have been dancing around the issue of whose territorial integrity is being violated.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Well, you cannot say that the Arab Palestinians had any territorial integrity.

I think I explained several times that the Arab Palestinians did not have any territory.
_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> For years you have been dancing around the issue of whose territorial integrity is being violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, you cannot say that the Arab Palestinians had any territorial integrity.
> 
> I think I explained several times that the Arab Palestinians did not have any territory.
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion.

Do you have anything to back that up?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *This speaks for itself.*



Because you used bolded text?

Do you have anything to back that up?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This speaks for itself.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you used bolded text?
> 
> Do you have anything to back that up?
Click to expand...

Sure, I Posted a quote with the link to the document.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This speaks for itself.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you used bolded text?
> 
> Do you have anything to back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I Posted a quote with the link to the document.
Click to expand...

Another UN opinion? That only speaks to an opinion. 

Nice deflection.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*November 27th, 2020 Message of Solidarity to the Palestinian People*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Alice Rothchild and a Just Peace in Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Philip Weiss - What is changing in "permissible" mainstream public debate—and what is not?*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * 
Your implication here is that:   *IF* I cannot prove the Rights and Title to the Territory formerly under the Mandate were NOT passed on to the Arab Palestinians, *THEN *it must be Arab Palestinian Territory by default.



RoccoR said:


> ✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.





P F Tinmore said:


> For years you have been dancing around the issue of whose territorial integrity is being violated.





RoccoR said:


> Well, you cannot say that the Arab Palestinians had any territorial integrity.
> I think I explained several times that the Arab Palestinians did not have any territory.





P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting opinion.
> Do you have anything to back that up?


*(COMMENT)*

Honestly, I do not...  I cannot prove that the Arab Palestinians did not get the territory by default.

*(MITIGATION)*

In 1920, the Allied Powers of the San Remo Convention endorsed the Balfour Declaration and crafted the framework to the Mandate for Palestine.

In 1920, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britain (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.  It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia." 

In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16) documented the relinquishment of the Rights and Title of the territory to the Allied Powers.

In February 1948, Palestine was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under the British Mandate by, who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.  The Allied Powers were planning to operate with the understanding that Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but not be a sovereign state until a self-governing institution emerged.

It was not until 1974 that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was designated (by the League of Arab States) the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

In July 1988, the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem - a political vacuum immediately falling into the hands of the Israelis.

To this day, I am unaware of any evidence showing that the Arab Palestinians liberated any territory in the name of the Palestinian People.

*₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪ *​
*(QUESTION)*

Am I correct in assuming you have evidence of the Arab Palestinians assuming sovereignty with Rights and Title over liberated territory?

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
*(QUESTION)*

What faction of Arab Palestinians are you following?

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What faction of Arab Palestinians are you following?
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R


The people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In February 1948, Palestine was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.


So says foreigners.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Honestly, I do not... I cannot prove that the Arab Palestinians did not get the territory by default.


Who then? The Allied powers had a non annexation policy. So it was not going to be theirs.

The people were to be nationals of the state that the territory was transferred.  Then came the Palestine citizenship order making Palestinians the citizens of Palestine.

What pretzel logic would make you believe that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Voices Across the Divide - Nakba documentary about Israel/Palestine*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What pretzel logic would make you believe that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians?


The land area you call Pal’istan belonged to the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the British Mandate.

Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.

Your re-writing of history doesn’t change history.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel logic would make you believe that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> The land area you call Pal’istan belonged to the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the British Mandate.
> 
> Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
> 
> Your re-writing of history doesn’t change history.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> They released all rights and title to the British Mandate.


No they didn't. The Mandates had a no annexation policy.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel logic would make you believe that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> The land area you call Pal’istan belonged to the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the British Mandate.
> 
> Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
> 
> Your re-writing of history doesn’t change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They released all rights and title to the British Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't. The Mandates had a no annexation policy.
Click to expand...

You’re terribly confused. The Mandatory never annexed any property.

We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.

I’m not at all surprised that you understand so little of the history surrounding this issue.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.


Who then?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
> 
> 
> 
> Who then?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and  title to the Mandatory.

You don’t understand this?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

*BLUF:* Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity _(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence__)_ and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power _(punishable under Customary and IHL)_ would completely fall apart.



Hollie said:


> We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.





P F Tinmore said:


> Who then?
> Link?





Hollie said:


> The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
> You don’t understand this?


*(COMMENT)*

It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it.  But they cannot admit it.  The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.

But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory."  He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.  

The Allied Powers won the War.​The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy *Territory* Administration.​The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.​The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers. ​The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.​One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.​The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.​The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.​
No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts.  The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative.  I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened.  Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity _(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence__)_ and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power _(punishable under Customary and IHL)_ would completely fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who then?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
> You don’t understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it.  But they cannot admit it.  The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.
> 
> But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory."  He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.
> 
> The Allied Powers won the War.​The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy *Territory* Administration.​The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.​The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers. ​The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.​One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.​The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.​The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.​
> No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts.  The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative.  I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened.  Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.


RoccoR said:


> The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.


The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.


RoccoR said:


> The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.


The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.

This changes the whole shtick.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity _(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence__)_ and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power _(punishable under Customary and IHL)_ would completely fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who then?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
> You don’t understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it.  But they cannot admit it.  The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.
> 
> But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory."  He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.
> 
> The Allied Powers won the War.​The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy *Territory* Administration.​The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.​The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers. ​The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.​One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.​The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.​The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.​
> No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts.  The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative.  I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened.  Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
> 
> This changes the whole shtick.
Click to expand...

The territories were not transferred to the new states. You have made that nonsense claim for years. That has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Your need to invent your own version of history is a sad, desperate attempt to assuage your hurt feelings.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Books From The Human Library: The Palestinian Experience*


----------



## Hollie

*The Pali Terrorist Experience*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

*BLUF:* You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.



P F Tinmore said:


> There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.


*(COMMENT)*

No, not really...



RoccoR said:


> The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.





P F Tinmore said:


> The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine


*(COMMENT)*

You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...


			
				EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties  > San Remo Convention said:
			
		

> The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*,"​​An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters* as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law *provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*.​


Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts?  *(RHETORICAL)*  Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.

The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.  

For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:

◈  Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.  ​​◈  Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.



RoccoR said:


> The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.





P F Tinmore said:


> The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
> This changes the whole shtick.


*(COMMENT)*

I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory."  What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title."  You will notice that I am very careful about that.  Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.

AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.

"Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state."  (That is to say, "a *defined* territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."

I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jews shoud get off the way..."
> she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.
> 
> Just that of all people on earth,
> everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
> except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you refuse to know anything,
> that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.
> 
> And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
> you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.
> 
> So what does it say about the validity of your position,
> if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
> for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?
> 
> How is this not hypocricy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> or simply based on a false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What false premise are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".
> 
> That's just sick.
> 
> Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
> and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.
> 
> 
> No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
> and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.
> 
> And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
> this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection..
Click to expand...


Explain...

When I asked you how does a supposed lack misrepresentation of one minority justifies a ban and boycott of another minority - your response was:



P F Tinmore said:


> If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.
> 
> Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.



Which again, is categorically false.
The Jewish civilization is indigenous to Palestine and of all the surviving cultures,
Jewish civilization is the only indingenous civilization that remained. There's a variety of precedents of independent Jewish states and a distinct thriving civilization in this land In fact this is one of the longest coontinuous documented historic connections between a land and its people in human history.

But what can we say about Arab Palestinians?

They weren't the first people, nor ever the only people there. There's no historic precedence of an exclusive Arab Palestinian state.

So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...

Therefore - why the double standard?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→  et al,

*BLUF:* Ordinary thinkers tend to mentally filter out more creative alternatives and limit the number of possible solutions. In this case, we might be observing the loss of grip on situations experienced or the reality



rylah said:


> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...
> Therefore - why the double standard?


*(COMMENT)*

The demand for an "Arab State" - but not a capability to invasion a "Jewish State" is an example of inverse creativity prone to madness.  It is at the opposite end of the spectrum from divergent thinking responsible for genius.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points.



That's when I know you cannot address anything with facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.
> 
> So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?



BS! And you know it!

That you call every Jew attacked by an Arab an 'illegal settler',
only reveals your racist and criminal agenda.

They don't have any borders, they attacked Olympic athletes in Munich,
hijack international planes, and murdered an Ameican senator


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."


That was before the new states were formed.

BTW, the term "new states" was a LoN designation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when I know you cannot address anything with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.
> 
> So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS! And you know it!
> 
> That you call every Jew attacked by an Arab an 'illegal settler',
> only reveals your racist and criminal agenda.
> 
> They don't have any borders, they attacked Olympic athletes in Munich,
> hijack international planes, and murdered an Ameican senator
Click to expand...

You have to go back 50 years. Do you have anything in our lifetime?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,


So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
> 
> 
> 
> That was before the new states were formed.
> 
> BTW, the term "new states" was a LoN designation.
Click to expand...

What new states?

link?

You seem to have a need and desire to press the same nonsensical claims even though you know those claims are nonsensical.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No, not really...
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties  > San Remo Convention said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*,"​​An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters* as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law *provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts?  *(RHETORICAL)*  Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.
> 
> The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.
> 
> For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:
> 
> ◈  Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.  ​​◈  Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
> This changes the whole shtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory."  What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title."  You will notice that I am very careful about that.  Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.
> 
> AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.
> 
> "Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state."  (That is to say, "a *defined* territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
> 
> I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*,"


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No, not really...
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties  > San Remo Convention said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*,"​​An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters* as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law *provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts?  *(RHETORICAL)*  Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.
> 
> The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.
> 
> For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:
> 
> ◈  Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.  ​​◈  Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
> This changes the whole shtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory."  What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title."  You will notice that I am very careful about that.  Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.
> 
> AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.
> 
> "Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state."  (That is to say, "a *defined* territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
> 
> I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*,"
Click to expand...

As usual, you simply spam various threads with your nonsensical claims.






						United Nations Maintenance Page
					






					unispal.un.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
> 
> 
> 
> That was before the new states were formed.
> 
> BTW, the term "new states" was a LoN designation.
Click to expand...

What new states?

link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That was before the new states were formed.



Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.

What new states?

You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.

___   <—— here’s a _fill in the blank_ for your usual spam smiley face.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was before the new states were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.
> 
> What new states?
> 
> You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.
> 
> ___   <—— here’s a _fill in the blank_ for your usual spam smiley face.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that you know so little.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was before the new states were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.
> 
> What new states?
> 
> You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.
> 
> ___   <—— here’s a _fill in the blank_ for your usual spam smiley face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't believe that you know so little.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection. You’re hoping to perpetuate your usual fraud.

What new states?

Link?


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→  et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Ordinary thinkers tend to mentally filter out more creative alternatives and limit the number of possible solutions. In this case, we might be observing the loss of grip on situations experienced or the reality
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...
> Therefore - why the double standard?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The demand for an "Arab State" - but not a capability to invasion a "Jewish State" is an example of inverse creativity prone to madness.  It is at the opposite end of the spectrum from divergent thinking responsible for genius.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


That's why I love Rudy Rochman, 
and the folks from The Home.

They kinda debate not to win an argument, 
but to challenge an opponent find an agreement.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That was before the new states were formed.



What new states?

You retreated, deflected, skedaddled without a smiley face.

Link to those new states?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


I didn't claim that,
in fact there's a 3,500 years of continuous presence of Jews in the land.
And as I said there's no other civilization indigienous to this land existing today.


Anyway, you didn't address my question -
before yo claimed Jews didn't deserve state, because they supposedly weren't the first, the only, or supposedly was there ever a Jewish state.

But for Arabs, inspite fitting none of the categories you apply for Jews,
now you say all it takes is to not completely wipe out the population??

Seriously dude, I've never engaged with someone so disturbingly morally corrupt.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't claim that,
> in fact there's a 3,500 years of continuous presence of Jews in the land.
> And as I said there's no other civilization indigienous to this land existing today.
> 
> 
> Anyway, you didn't address my question -
> before yo claimed Jews didn't deserve state, because they supposedly weren't the first, the only, or supposedly was there ever a Jewish state.
> 
> But for Arabs, inspite fitting none of the categories you apply for Jews,
> now you say all it takes is to not completely wipe out the population??
> 
> Seriously dude, I've never engaged with someone so disturbingly morally corrupt.
Click to expand...

That didn't address my question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't claim that,
> in fact there's a 3,500 years of continuous presence of Jews in the land.
> And as I said there's no other civilization indigienous to this land existing today.
> 
> 
> Anyway, you didn't address my question -
> before yo claimed Jews didn't deserve state, because they supposedly weren't the first, the only, or supposedly was there ever a Jewish state.
> 
> But for Arabs, inspite fitting none of the categories you apply for Jews,
> now you say all it takes is to not completely wipe out the population??
> 
> Seriously dude, I've never engaged with someone so disturbingly morally corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That didn't address my question.
Click to expand...


Those new states?

You never addressed that.

Anything on youtube?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Battle For Justice In Palestine: Ali Abunimah & Barbara Ransby in Conversation*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't claim that,
> in fact there's a 3,500 years of continuous presence of Jews in the land.
> And as I said there's no other civilization indigienous to this land existing today.
> 
> 
> Anyway, you didn't address my question -
> before yo claimed Jews didn't deserve state, because they supposedly weren't the first, the only, or supposedly was there ever a Jewish state.
> 
> But for Arabs, inspite fitting none of the categories you apply for Jews,
> now you say all it takes is to not completely wipe out the population??
> 
> Seriously dude, I've never engaged with someone so disturbingly morally corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That didn't address my question.
Click to expand...


Stop ducking, I addressed it,
Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.

That question still doesn't justify your racist bigorty or demand for an Arab state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.


So were a lot of other people. What is your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Preventing Palestine: How 40 Years of U.S.-Led Peacemaking Have Failed the Palestinians*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Preventing Palestine: How 40 Years of U.S.-Led Peacemaking Have Failed the Palestinians*



Lots of cheap excuses for the failures of Arabs-Moslems.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
Click to expand...

The point is, The Jewish people managed to build a vibrant nation in the former Turkish territory. The Arabs-Moslems were not.

Nothing yet about those 'new states" you wrote about. So much bluster about nothing. 

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine, the Global South, and Reacting to the Neoliberal Present*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Great Palestinian Book Robbery (w/ Benny Brunner)*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Great Palestinian Book Robbery (w/ Benny Brunner)*



Book robbery?

Is that the book you read about those “new states” you believe existed but were unable to identify?

link to those new states?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Peace in the Middle East Region _(Israel and the adjacent countries)_ is NOT the responsibility of the United States (US). It is the duty of the Regional Nations and their People to maintain.  It is NOT the duty of the US to make the Arab Palestinian people happy.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Preventing Palestine: How 40 Years of U.S.-Led Peacemaking Have Failed the Palestinians*


*(COMMENT)*

The US did not fail anyone but themselves and even that is questionable → depending on what objectives you had in mind.

IF the objective was the maintenance of regional peace and security THEN the diffusing of any further conflict on the scale of the last major confrontation _(1973 Yom Kipper Conflict - a follow-on to the 1948 Conflict)_ between Israel and the Arab League has been avoided.  And in that context, the US did not support _(and still does not support)_ the Arab Palestinians in the furtherance of the hostile environment.  In that sense, the US could have been considered an active opponent of Arab Palestinian goals and objectives.  

Since the First Peace Treaty _(between Egypt and Israel was signed in Washington DC in 1979) _the US has assisted these former adversaries to maintain a grip on peace.  While there have been a few border area skirmishes, in large part → most of the confrontations have been inspired by radical extremists action. 

*(∑Ω)*

The US-Led Peacemaking DID NOT FAIL the Palestinians... The *Arab Palestinians failed themselves* as they continue to do each and every day.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Are you linking to the Cartoon Network?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Peace in the Middle East Region _(Israel and the adjacent countries)_ is NOT the responsibility of the United States (US). It is the duty of the Regional Nations and their People to maintain.  It is NOT the duty of the US to make the Arab Palestinian people happy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Preventing Palestine: How 40 Years of U.S.-Led Peacemaking Have Failed the Palestinians*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The US did not fail anyone but themselves and even that is questionable → depending on what objectives you had in mind.
> 
> IF the objective was the maintenance of regional peace and security THEN the diffusing of any further conflict on the scale of the last major confrontation _(1973 Yom Kipper Conflict - a follow-on to the 1948 Conflict)_ between Israel and the Arab League has been avoided.  And in that context, the US did not support _(and still does not support)_ the Arab Palestinians in the furtherance of the hostile environment.  In that sense, the US could have been considered an active opponent of Arab Palestinian goals and objectives.
> 
> Since the First Peace Treaty _(between Egypt and Israel was signed in Washington DC in 1979) _the US has assisted these former adversaries to maintain a grip on peace.  While there have been a few border area skirmishes, in large part → most of the confrontations have been inspired by radical extremists action.
> 
> *(∑Ω)*
> 
> The US-Led Peacemaking DID NOT FAIL the Palestinians... The *Arab Palestinians failed themselves* as they continue to do each and every day.
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You can't resist demonizing the Palestinians, can you?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* 

*DEMONIZING | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary*
Demonizing and *denying the humanity of the other is described as a major defense mechanism used by each side to justify aggression* against the other. From the Cambridge English Corpus …




RoccoR said:


> *(∑Ω)*
> The US-Led Peacemaking DID NOT FAIL the Palestinians... The *Arab Palestinians failed themselves* as they continue to do each and every day.





P F Tinmore said:


> You can't resist demonizing the Palestinians, can you?


*(COMMENT)*

Denying the Humanity of the Arab Palestinians!    I think not.

Now:  These are examples of Denying the Humanity of an opponent:


Palestinian Arab Official Admits “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate”


The PA today doubled the monthly salary it pays to the terrorist prisoner who planned the murder of 3 Israeli teens in 2014


Fatah: Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis


Palestinian children's TV show features poem promoting child martyrdom
*(∑Ω)*

No, I'm just agreeing with them.  These are not the sounds of Humanity.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
Click to expand...


There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.

But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.

My point is that all of the excuses you give,
as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.

So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
in fact it doesn't address that at all.

It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.

So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
 among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world. 

Again you defy your own definitions,
there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.

So why the double standards?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can you cut and paste a YouTube video identifying what cities were actually lost?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Book Launch with Rashid Khalidi*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
Click to expand...


Indeed I'm missing the point here,
because you're not addressing my question.

None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.

*In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
Arabs deserve to be boycotted.*

So how come, after 10 years of daily posting radically against Israel,
you still can't conistently explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Book Launch with Rashid Khalidi*



The Palis can stop their war at any time.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
Click to expand...

Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
Click to expand...


Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':

The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _








						Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

*BLUF:* While there is bound to be an example (or two) wherein a Benevolent Imperial Power granted "statehood" to a territory that functioned as a controlled single unit, within a hierarchical structure consisting of many territories, without some sort of add value expectation Empire, it certainly was the exception to the rule.  

In the case of Palestine_ (the territory formerly under the Mandate)_, the question of "statehood" was NOT a reward.  Nor was the territorial break-up and partitioning of former Ottoman territories a punishment.



rylah said:


> So why the double standards?





P F Tinmore said:


> You're missing the point.





rylah said:


> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?


*(COMMENT)*

While the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan emerged as first a British Protectorate (1921) and then Independent (1946) there were definite motivations (political, economic, commercial, and diplomatic).  But it was not a totally benevolent move on the part of the British Empire.  And, it was the fulfillment of a long in coming promise in exchange for the Irregular Forces and other positive contributions used in The Great War to Defeat the Ottoman Empire.  The Arabs of Palestine were on the opposite side of the equation.  Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, former Captain in the Ottoman Army, who got religion and became the Mufti of Jerusalem. Amin al-Husseini later became the President of the Egyptian assembled All Palestine Government (APG). Similarly, Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, former General Officer in the Ottoman Army, became the Premier of the APG. The APG attempted to claim sovereignty over the entire territory formerly under the Mandate, which included the complete partition of the Jewish State.

*(∑Ω)*

Certainly, the Arabs of Palestine, on the side opposing the Allied Forces in both World Wars were anything other than deserving.  I would like the hear what the pro-Arab Palestinian Camp has to say about what the Arab Palestinians deserving of anything.

Personally, I don't think that the events more than half-century-old are justification for anything.  I think of the Oslo Accords (the mid-1990s) moving forward are what counts.

_

_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
Click to expand...

You're deflecting.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The APG attempted to claim sovereignty over the entire territory formerly under the Mandate, which included the complete partition of the Jewish State.


What partition?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> the entire territory formerly under the Mandate,


Do you *ever*  use the term former Mandate when talking about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Jordan?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
Click to expand...


Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.

Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,



RoccoR said:


> the entire territory formerly under the Mandate,





P F Tinmore said:


> Do you *ever*  use the term former Mandate when talking about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Jordan?


*(COMMENT)*

All of those territories are "territories formerly under" one of the Mandates.

When I talked about the Franco-British Convention/Treaty I was talking about "The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine."   They are boundaries in a former context.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is what makes you so challenging.  Everyone else in the discussion group knows exactly what Partition we are discussing.  Only you



RoccoR said:


> The APG attempted to claim sovereignty over the entire territory formerly under the Mandate, which included the complete partition of the Jewish State.





P F Tinmore said:


> What partition?


*(ANSWER)*
Chapter 2:   The Partition Plan and end of the British Mandate  .  .  .  .  .  .  7



​And don't comeback with that same nonsense, the Plan was never executed.  The portion pertaining to Israel (The Jewish State) was according to the UN Palestine Commission.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the entire territory formerly under the Mandate,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you *ever*  use the term former Mandate when talking about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All of those territories are "territories formerly under" one of the Mandates.
> 
> When I talked about the Franco-British Convention/Treaty I was talking about "The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine."   They are boundaries in a former context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, but you won't say it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is what makes you so challenging.  Everyone else in the discussion group knows exactly what Partition we are discussing.  Only you
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APG attempted to claim sovereignty over the entire territory formerly under the Mandate, which included the complete partition of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What partition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> Chapter 2:   The Partition Plan and end of the British Mandate  .  .  .  .  .  .  7
> 
> View attachment 421033​And don't comeback with that same nonsense, the Plan was never executed.  The portion pertaining to Israel (The Jewish State) was according to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oh, you are talking about the one that flopped.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Oh, you are talking about the one that flopped.


Indeed, it was the intended Islamist partition (from the river to the sea), that flopped.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
Click to expand...

You are ducking the question that will answer your question.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Free Palestine: Susan Abulhawa and Khaled Barakat Speak*


----------



## Hollie

Free Pal’istan...from what, exactly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine - Jeremy Corbyn & Mustafa Barghouti in Conversation*


----------



## Hollie

Justice in Gaza’istan


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
Click to expand...


*See, you don't have a direct answer.*
After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.

*That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*

The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.

The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.

Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.

*So let me rephrase my question - 
do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
Click to expand...

Still dancing around the question, huh?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dancing around the question, huh?
Click to expand...


Already addressed it twice,
and it totally contradicts the demand for an Arab state.

If you really had a point you would have said it by now,
but I think you realize well that your prepise is wrong,
every excuse you use to exclude Jews, excludes Arabs.

Following your argument:

Arabs weren't the first,
Arabs weren't the only,
Palestine was never an Arab state

Arabs didn't manage to expel all the natives,
their majority wasn't created by peaceful means,
but the Jewish community had continuous presence for 3,500 years.

So who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dancing around the question, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed it twice,
> and it totally contradicts the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> If you really had a point you would have said it by now,
> but I think you realize well that your prepise is wrong,
> every excuse you use to exclude Jews, excludes Arabs.
> 
> Following your argument:
> 
> Arabs weren't the first,
> Arabs weren't the only,
> Palestine was never an Arab state
> 
> Arabs didn't manage to expel all the natives,
> their majority wasn't created by peaceful means,
> but the Jewish community had continuous presence for 3,500 years.
> 
> So who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?
Click to expand...

Still ducking.

When did all of the natives leave to be replaced by Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dancing around the question, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed it twice,
> and it totally contradicts the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> If you really had a point you would have said it by now,
> but I think you realize well that your prepise is wrong,
> every excuse you use to exclude Jews, excludes Arabs.
> 
> Following your argument:
> 
> Arabs weren't the first,
> Arabs weren't the only,
> Palestine was never an Arab state
> 
> Arabs didn't manage to expel all the natives,
> their majority wasn't created by peaceful means,
> but the Jewish community had continuous presence for 3,500 years.
> 
> So who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still ducking.
> 
> When did all of the natives leave to be replaced by Arabs?
Click to expand...



We adressed that, Arabs didn't manage to replace all the natives,
the Jewish community remained continuously in the land for 3,500 years.

So again, how does your question excuses Arab colonialism,
*who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dancing around the question, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed it twice,
> and it totally contradicts the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> If you really had a point you would have said it by now,
> but I think you realize well that your prepise is wrong,
> every excuse you use to exclude Jews, excludes Arabs.
> 
> Following your argument:
> 
> Arabs weren't the first,
> Arabs weren't the only,
> Palestine was never an Arab state
> 
> Arabs didn't manage to expel all the natives,
> their majority wasn't created by peaceful means,
> but the Jewish community had continuous presence for 3,500 years.
> 
> So who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still ducking.
> 
> When did all of the natives leave to be replaced by Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We adressed that, Arabs didn't manage to replace all the natives,
> the Jewish community remained continuously in the land for 3,500 years.
> 
> So again, how does your question excuses Arab colonialism,
> *who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?*
Click to expand...

Did the Arabs throw everybody out or are they mostly the same people who have lived there forever?

Here are your so called Arabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Analysis of Pompeo's unprecedented visit to Israeli settlements with Dr Ramzy Baroud*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Amahl Bishara: "Against Fragmentation: Palestinian Women's Engagement Across the Green Line"


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were always present in the land, continuously for 3,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> So were a lot of other people. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no other nation beside Jews that had 3,500 years of civilization in this land,
> it actually really flourished only when Jews governed independently.
> Other nations built monuments of conquest, but didn't really,
> develop anything culturally distinct or flurished themselves.
> 
> But again, even if this was the opposite, this still doesn't justify,
> why of all people Jews don't deserve independence.
> 
> My point is that all of the excuses you give,
> as to rationalalize why Jews  should be excluded from that right, actually lead to the opposite conclusion. And even if your premise was correct, and by your category it justifies eliminating the Jewish state, then by the very same category it invalidates the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> So how about instead of mindlessly repeating stuff that doesn't add up,
> explain - *why do you think Arabs deserve a state more than Jews?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't explain why Arabs deserve a state more than Jews,
> in fact it doesn't address that at all.
> 
> It was you who tried to justify the demand for an Arab state,
> by the fact that they didn't mange to wipe out all the locals.
> 
> So if you claim Arabs deserve a state according to that category,
> the Jews sure do, not only did they didn't expell all the Arabs fighting for independence,
> in fact since the re-constitution of the Jewish, their population grew sevenfold,
> among whom many prefer Israeli rule to anything they see in the Arab world.
> 
> Again you defy your own definitions,
> there's nothing Arabs didn't do that you accuse the Israelis.
> 
> So why the double standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed I'm missing the point here,
> because you're not addressing my question.
> 
> So why do you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> None of your responses explain why Arabs deserve a state more than others.
> And there's no crime you accuse Israel that Arabs are not guilty of.
> 
> In fact, when following your definitions consistently,
> Arabs deserve to be boycotted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who call for an Arab state in Palestine, it never was one,
> and even Arabs themselves call it the '_desert of the Jews':
> 
> The *Judaean Desert* or *Judean Desert* (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ Midbar Yehuda, both Desert of Judah or Judaean Desert; *Arabic**: صحراء يهودا‎ Sahraa' Yahuda)*  is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by natural terraces with escarpments. It ends in a steep escarpment dropping to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaean Desert - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So how does this explain why you think Arabs deserve a state and Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if I missed the answer to the question you've been ducking.
> 
> Was there an explantion as to why you assume Arabs deserve a state while Jews don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question that will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See, you don't have a direct answer.*
> After 10 years of posting radical anti-Israel propaganda,
> you're surprisingly hesitant to answer a simpe question about your core premise.
> 
> *That's the point*, all the answers to your questions
> emphasize exactly* the reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.*
> 
> The underying assumption of the first argument you introduced - that Jews shouldn't deserve a state, because supposedly they weren't the first, the only, or that there supposedly wasn't a Jewish state, actually point to the specific reasons why an Arab state would be illegitimate.
> 
> The rationalization you've made in defense of that  - that Arab didn't expel all the natives -
> again play against the legitimacy of the Arab claim, and in favor of Israel.
> 
> Lastly you ask "who said Palestine was for grabs" - and I'm saying just listen to yourself,
> that's exactly why every reason you give for excluding Jews directly leads to excluding Arabs.
> 
> *So let me rephrase my question -
> do you really think there's an argument for the exclusion of Jews,
> that doesn't result in both the exclusion of Arabs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dancing around the question, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed it twice,
> and it totally contradicts the demand for an Arab state.
> 
> If you really had a point you would have said it by now,
> but I think you realize well that your prepise is wrong,
> every excuse you use to exclude Jews, excludes Arabs.
> 
> Following your argument:
> 
> Arabs weren't the first,
> Arabs weren't the only,
> Palestine was never an Arab state
> 
> Arabs didn't manage to expel all the natives,
> their majority wasn't created by peaceful means,
> but the Jewish community had continuous presence for 3,500 years.
> 
> So who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still ducking.
> 
> When did all of the natives leave to be replaced by Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We adressed that, Arabs didn't manage to replace all the natives,
> the Jewish community remained continuously in the land for 3,500 years.
> 
> So again, how does your question excuses Arab colonialism,
> *who says Arabs deserve to grab Palestine and demand it becomes an Arab state?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the Arabs throw everybody out or are they mostly the same people who have lived there forever?
> 
> Here are your so called Arabs.
Click to expand...


The question is self contradicting.

Look at American colonialism, Indians remained only 1.6%
Look at Arab collonialism, Jews remained but 3%

Obviously, we're talking about Arab invaders expelling the natives,
therefore by definition Arabs cannot be the "people who lived there forever".

The absurdity of that claim is self evident when:

1. Arabs cannot pronounce the name of the land
2. Most popular Arab surnames bear names of foreign countries
3. Arabs themselves and their leaders openly tell of their foreign origin


But what is even more absurd, is that while claiming to oppose colonialism,
you're using the exact collonialist methods of replacing the native population.

What would you say if someone used a picture of random Americans to claim -
"these people lived forever in Milwaukee", to justify exclusion and boycott of Indians?

*So how can BDS be a legitimate anti-collonial movement
when you're promoting Arab collonialism?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Christian Zionism & Settler Colonialism  - Reverend Don Wagner*


----------



## Hollie

*Palestinian Sheikh: Mosques in Palestine Have Been Turned into Pigsties, Brothels, Bars *


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism*


----------



## Hollie

Gazan Poet Rihab Kanaan Honors Female Terrorists, Suicide Bombers on International Women's Day


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Erasure of the Palestinians: Resisting Israeli Genocide via Solidarity, Education, Law & Art*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Erasure of the Palestinians: Resisting Israeli Genocide via Solidarity, Education, Law & Art*



Genocide? Your youtube gee-had is rather desperate with these silly slogans.

Indeed, maybe it's time for a nice hot cup of tea and some Xanax.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Changing Relationship Between Diaspora Jews and Israel*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PALCONV2020: VIRTUAL GALA - Against All Odds: Palestine Prevails*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel, Palestine and international law with Professor Richard Falk*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PALCONV2020: The Role of the Diaspora & the Palestinian National Project*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Struggle For Abolition: From The U.S. To Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ep 1: Featuring Dr. Ramzy Baroud - "Palestinian: Beyond Conflict"*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ilan Pappe & Diana Buttu: What Next for Palestine?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*MEI Webinar Series Pt 1: The Future of Palestinian Politics under a Biden Administration*

*MEI Webinar Series Pt 2: The Future of Palestinian Politics under a Biden Administration*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



There's no such 'right',
certainly not for hostile populations,
you know that, she knows that no less.

And as far as anti-Israel logic goes, her "right to return" is to America.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Inalienable Right of Return*
Join us for ‘The Inalienable Right’, the opening panel to our first Return Week. Our speakers include Noura Erakat, Rashid Khalidi, Iman Jodeh, Janna Jihad, Miko Peled & Dr Ghada Karmi. Chaired by Shabbir Lakha.

Starts @ 14:40


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Inalienable Right of Return*
> Join us for ‘The Inalienable Right’, the opening panel to our first Return Week. Our speakers include Noura Erakat, Rashid Khalidi, Iman Jodeh, Janna Jihad, Miko Peled & Dr Ghada Karmi. Chaired by Shabbir Lakha.
> 
> Starts @ 14:40









I support the return of Kurds, Saudis and Egyptians to where they belong:

*Kurds in Palestine hoping to connect with home*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Islamic terrorist show


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Politics in the U.S. and Palestine with Rashida Tlaib, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Diana Buttu, and Dr. Loubna Qutami

Starts @ 17:00*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Why did he let her respond?
I think this is typical of most anti-Israel activists,
you usually jut can't handle a normal honest debate.

And that beatup straw argument he repeated,
is actually used by noone but Arab Palestinians themselves.

He didn't let her respond because he knows well and it's common knowledge,
that this is exactly how Arabs came to dominate the region through the spread of Islam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Other Jerusalem... Tomorrow's Jerusalem - Rashid Khalidi and Salim Tamari in conversation*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Process: Will the Palestine/Israel Conflict Ever End?*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Occupied Thoughts: A Palestinian View on Antisemitism*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Abby Martin- Netanyahu Should Be Indicted for War Crimes! ‘Gaza Fights for Freedom!’*


----------



## LA RAM FAN

cool thread.thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Thomas Getman: When and How Did Evangelicals Become Zionists?*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*In conversation with olive farmer, Akram Omran, from Burin, Palestine.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Threat of Israeli Annexation (N. Erakat, R. Khalidi, K. Jahshan, R. Zreik, L. Farsakh, N. Kidwa)*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Systemic Racism in the US and Israel - Nadia Abu El Haj, Johanna Fernández, Maha Nassar, and Nahla*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rashid Khalidi on why a century of settler colonialism with American support has failed to defeat Palestinians*




			https://mondoweiss.net/2020/05/rashid-khalidi-hundred-years-war-book-interview/?utm_content=buffer7cb3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3rO1ucmaeabxzW7zGKmDkZ4f4j4GZ0hboUrssSKygDXoEJ3NIyFFSdHxg


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Rashid Khalidi on why a century of settler colonialism with American support has failed to defeat Palestinians*





Another silly, Islamic conspiracy theory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Workshop Wednesday: How we can stop funding the Israeli military & Abuse of Palestinian Children*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Janna Jihad (youngest journalist in the world) : The Inalienable Right of Return (EN. VO)*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 04: "THIS LAND IS MY LAND"*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinian right of return isn’t antisemitism. It’s UN Resolution 194.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel Propaganda in the News Media- UMass Professor Emeritus Sut Jhally*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between: 

*(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​


P F Tinmore said:


> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*


*(COMMENT)*

First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.   

*(WHAT IS THE LAW) *

Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.

_*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.

The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).

*(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*

The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.

​







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Janna Jihad (youngest journalist in the world) : The Inalienable Right of Return (EN. VO)*



There’s this creepy “thing” with Islam and pre-teen girls.

* The Inalienable Right of Return (EN. VO) Young Female Abuse*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.
Click to expand...

... but enough about the Hamas Charter and the history of Islamism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: Yeah - and who said what it is about.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no *colonial* power involved. Ask Committee 24. This is just a slogan that the Arab Palestinians hang on to; but, they have to redefine colonialism as it is outlined by the Committee _("exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization")_. You can go back in time 60 years, and you will not find any decolonial issues in the Region under dispute.

In terms of *occupation*, just when did Israel occupy any territory under Palestinian Sovereignty?

Occupation and effective control is reached when the three criteria derived from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 – are fulfilled.

*Article 42 Hague Regulation*​Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​​While it can be said, since the territory was Jordanian, which came under effective control by Israel, it was at that point: "Sovereign Jordanian Territory" which was Occupied by Israeli in 1967.  But in 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.​​So while Israeli Troops represented a foreign Army on the territory between 1967 and 1988, it was no longer a hostile Army after 31 July 1988.​
It is not about "apartheid." 

Article 7(2h), *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*​"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by  one  racial  group  over  any  other  racial  group  or  groups  and  committed  with  the  intention  of  maintaining that regime;​​It is NOT the case that there is a condition of "one racial group over any other racial group."​​It is NOT the case that there is a condition of Arab Palestinians being arbitrarily deprived of the right to entering Israel.  The "Security Barrier" was erected for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Article 19 (3b) *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).​





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.


RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


View attachment 434280

Is this the one you are talking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Article 42 Hague Regulation *Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.


Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 42 Hague Regulation *Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there was never an occupation of sovereign Pally land.

Indeed, you confuse Arab-Moslem occupation of former Turkish controlled territory with an islamist waqf.

You do indeed have a rather imaginative version of islamo-history.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: Oh, wow! 



RoccoR said:


> *Article 42 Hague Regulation *Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

Relative to the 1948 Claim Made _supra_,
The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination," the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.​
Relative to the 1967 Claim Made _supra_,
You might question, why the Israelis and NOT the Arab Palestinians?  It was because the Arab Palestinians had no established government or associated infrastructure on the ground.  The Israelis were already in place and with the right infrastructure to facilitate a governing body.​
The Gaza Strip is much different.  In 2005, it was the Israelis that unilaterally withdrew _(tantamount to abandonment)_ and left the question of the Ruling Authority over the territory to the Arab Palestinians under the "Default Rule Theory."  And in this case, the terrorist group → Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) ultimately became the ruling faction. 





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"


I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.

Got a link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.


Is that why the whole world calls them Occupied Palestinian Territories?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was because the Arab Palestinians had no established government or associated infrastructure on the ground. The Israelis were already in place and with the right infrastructure to facilitate a governing body.


That was due to the British violations until 1948.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the whole world calls them Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Click to expand...

I don’t see that the whole world calls them “Occupied Palestinian Territories”

Got a link for that?



What’s make a territory “Pal’istanian” territory? Territory currently occupied by Arabs-Moslems and who previously occupied territory controlled by the Turks and who never had sovereign control of any territory you may describe as Pal’istanian territory is merely a claim consistent with Islamist ideology that lands occupied by islamists becomes an Islamist waqf.

Need a link for that?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...

Where are you looking?

Got a link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 42 Hague Regulation *Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.
Click to expand...

Who occupied who in 1948? Please post a link 

am


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...

Link to what ? Do you even know how to read ?? 
You can whine all you want about how Israel was created . Fact is, Israel is a legit country, even part of the U.N .
You never provide links for ANY of your stupid claims, then you have the nerve to ask someone else for one ?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
THREE RESPONSES in ONE
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: You have these claims embedded in your head, and there is nothing that will help you to unravel the truth. Given that political truths are in the eye of the beholder.



RoccoR said:


> the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.





P F Tinmore said:


> Is that why the whole world calls them Occupied Palestinian Territories?


*(COMMENT)*

The original terminology of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" included the legacy meaning of "Palestine" → which was the short title given the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The short title was used since the inception of the Palestine Order in Coucil (1922).

The term "Palestine" in the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" has nothing to do with the territories belonging to some undefined state other than the artificial Government of Palestine (UK).

So many uninformed people have used this phrasing believing it establishes some formal connection and sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian people that have yet formed a Government that could "stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world" _(League of Nations Covenant - Article 22)_; even given all the international donor contributions and the availability to reach out to any nation or organization to render assistance.  To this day, there is a question as to the true functionality of either the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government _(or even the coalition of the two)_ to the test of a viable and going concern _(as a sovereign state)_.  Both the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government do not speak with one voice in reality.  A fact that is often ignored in most political, diplomatic, and laypersons discussions.  It is rarely even mentioned in all the "pro-Palestinian Youtube videos" posted in this discussion group.

If one applies the strict compliance concept to the "Question of Palestine" in its current status, the Gaza Government is one quasi-sovereign entity of a terrorist state and the Ramallah Government is sovereign only unto Area "A."  



RoccoR said:


> It was because the Arab Palestinians had no established government or associated infrastructure on the ground. The Israelis were already in place and with the right infrastructure to facilitate a governing body.





P F Tinmore said:


> That was due to the British violations until 1948.


*(COMMENT)*

The British Administration prior to 1948 had it troubles.  But the outcome was largely due to a lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_.  When you make these nebulous and unidentified claims of "violations" → you need to make it clear, what the charge is and what law was violated.  Otherwise, it is just so much noise.

​

			
				Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
			
		

> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage.  The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.  If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on  more democratic lines.”
> In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development.  From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
> SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*






RoccoR said:


> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"





P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.
> Got a link?


*(COMMENT)*

First, there is nothing in the 19th or 20th Century Customary International Law that says the world powers must follow your _(or any Arab Palestinians)_ interpretation of post-War development - or - what should have occurred  'vs'  what actually happened in terms of international understanding and acceptance.

Second:  There was a "Mandate."


			
				Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
			
		

> The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:
> 
> “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
> This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:
> (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and​(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*



Self-Determination is not a legal concept related to the acquisition of territory.  It is something greater drawn from the strength of the people involved.  The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 essentially authored the political outline for the Mandate.  Whether → in the end, it was successful leadership or not, is not the issue.  It was in their power to take the action → and they did.  This was a direct by-product from the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

*(EPILOG)*

The Arab Palestinians of the early 20th Century did not have the strength in the will or the people to accomplish their objectives.   That was true in 1919 and 1920, when the Allied Powers and the Peace Talks were formalized and the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers set the framework for the post-War territorial distribution and principle political concerns.  In point of fact, the entirety of the regional area we are discussing was controlled by a military administration, under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, during the Paris Peace Talks and the San Remo conference of the Supreme Council.  And still today, the Arab Palestinians demand political concessions that can never found acceptable.

◈  Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people.​​◈  Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.​





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> THREE RESPONSES in ONE
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You have these claims embedded in your head, and there is nothing that will help you to unravel the truth. Given that political truths are in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the whole world calls them Occupied Palestinian Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original terminology of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" included the legacy meaning of "Palestine" → which was the short title given the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The short title was used since the inception of the Palestine Order in Coucil (1922).
> 
> The term "Palestine" in the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" has nothing to do with the territories belonging to some undefined state other than the artificial Government of Palestine (UK).
> 
> So many uninformed people have used this phrasing believing it establishes some formal connection and sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian people that have yet formed a Government that could "stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world" _(League of Nations Covenant - Article 22)_; even given all the international donor contributions and the availability to reach out to any nation or organization to render assistance.  To this day, there is a question as to the true functionality of either the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government _(or even the coalition of the two)_ to the test of a viable and going concern _(as a sovereign state)_.  Both the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government do not speak with one voice in reality.  A fact that is often ignored in most political, diplomatic, and laypersons discussions.  It is rarely even mentioned in all the "pro-Palestinian Youtube videos" posted in this discussion group.
> 
> If one applies the strict compliance concept to the "Question of Palestine" in its current status, the Gaza Government is one quasi-sovereign entity of a terrorist state and the Ramallah Government is sovereign only unto Area "A."
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was because the Arab Palestinians had no established government or associated infrastructure on the ground. The Israelis were already in place and with the right infrastructure to facilitate a governing body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was due to the British violations until 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Administration prior to 1948 had it troubles.  But the outcome was largely due to a lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_.  When you make these nebulous and unidentified claims of "violations" → you need to make it clear, what the charge is and what law was violated.  Otherwise, it is just so much noise.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage.  The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.  If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on  more democratic lines.”
> 
> In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development.  From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, there is nothing in the 19th or 20th Century Customary International Law that says the world powers must follow your _(or any Arab Palestinians)_ interpretation of post-War development - or - what should have occurred  'vs'  what actually happened in terms of international understanding and acceptance.
> 
> Second:  There was a "Mandate."
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:​
> “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
> 
> This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:​(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and​(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
> SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Self-Determination is not a legal concept related to the acquisition of territory.  It is something greater drawn from the strength of the people involved.  The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 essentially authored the political outline for the Mandate.  Whether → in the end, it was successful leadership or not, is not the issue.  It was in their power to take the action → and they did.  This was a direct by-product from the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the early 20th Century did not have the strength in the will or the people to accomplish their objectives.   That was true in 1919 and 1920, when the Allied Powers and the Peace Talks were formalized and the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers set the framework for the post-War territorial distribution and principle political concerns.  In point of fact, the entirety of the regional area we are discussing was controlled by a military administration, under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, during the Paris Peace Talks and the San Remo conference of the Supreme Council.  And still today, the Arab Palestinians demand political concessions that can never found acceptable.
> 
> ◈  Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people.​​◈  Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.

No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Self-Determination is not a legal concept related to the acquisition of territory.


Indeed!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> THREE RESPONSES in ONE
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You have these claims embedded in your head, and there is nothing that will help you to unravel the truth. Given that political truths are in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Question of Occupation over the West Bank and Jerusalem was ultimately set by the “default rule theory” when the Jordanians abandon the territory and leaving the rule to the Israelis by default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the whole world calls them Occupied Palestinian Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original terminology of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" included the legacy meaning of "Palestine" → which was the short title given the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The short title was used since the inception of the Palestine Order in Coucil (1922).
> 
> The term "Palestine" in the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" has nothing to do with the territories belonging to some undefined state other than the artificial Government of Palestine (UK).
> 
> So many uninformed people have used this phrasing believing it establishes some formal connection and sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian people that have yet formed a Government that could "stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world" _(League of Nations Covenant - Article 22)_; even given all the international donor contributions and the availability to reach out to any nation or organization to render assistance.  To this day, there is a question as to the true functionality of either the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government _(or even the coalition of the two)_ to the test of a viable and going concern _(as a sovereign state)_.  Both the Gaza Strip Government or the Ramallah Government do not speak with one voice in reality.  A fact that is often ignored in most political, diplomatic, and laypersons discussions.  It is rarely even mentioned in all the "pro-Palestinian Youtube videos" posted in this discussion group.
> 
> If one applies the strict compliance concept to the "Question of Palestine" in its current status, the Gaza Government is one quasi-sovereign entity of a terrorist state and the Ramallah Government is sovereign only unto Area "A."
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was because the Arab Palestinians had no established government or associated infrastructure on the ground. The Israelis were already in place and with the right infrastructure to facilitate a governing body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was due to the British violations until 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Administration prior to 1948 had it troubles.  But the outcome was largely due to a lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_.  When you make these nebulous and unidentified claims of "violations" → you need to make it clear, what the charge is and what law was violated.  Otherwise, it is just so much noise.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage.  The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.  If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on  more democratic lines.”
> 
> In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development.  From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial territorial Rule established by Israel in 1948 was by "Self-Determination,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Self-Determination listed as a means of acquiring territory.
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, there is nothing in the 19th or 20th Century Customary International Law that says the world powers must follow your _(or any Arab Palestinians)_ interpretation of post-War development - or - what should have occurred  'vs'  what actually happened in terms of international understanding and acceptance.
> 
> Second:  There was a "Mandate."
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:​
> “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
> 
> This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:​(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and​(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
> SOURCE:  *A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947*​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Self-Determination is not a legal concept related to the acquisition of territory.  It is something greater drawn from the strength of the people involved.  The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 essentially authored the political outline for the Mandate.  Whether → in the end, it was successful leadership or not, is not the issue.  It was in their power to take the action → and they did.  This was a direct by-product from the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the early 20th Century did not have the strength in the will or the people to accomplish their objectives.   That was true in 1919 and 1920, when the Allied Powers and the Peace Talks were formalized and the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers set the framework for the post-War territorial distribution and principle political concerns.  In point of fact, the entirety of the regional area we are discussing was controlled by a military administration, under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, during the Paris Peace Talks and the San Remo conference of the Supreme Council.  And still today, the Arab Palestinians demand political concessions that can never found acceptable.
> 
> ◈  Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people.​​◈  Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.
> 
> No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.
Click to expand...

Indeed, identify ''all of their (Pal) institutions'' which were dismantled during the mandate period. 

Indeed, what independent, sovereign Pal governing body was dismantled during the mandate period? I believe some of the governing bodies pre-mandate would include Ottoman Turkey and the Hashemite Kingdom - Jordan. 

Indeed, your version of history seems far different.

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: I think this is part of your perceptual problem. While I can agree in principle that no country or people holds a perfect record in making political, economic, industrial, diplomatic and military (etc) decisions, in the case of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_; nearly every decision they made was not in the best interest of the people or the potential for nation-building. 



P F Tinmore said:


> You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.
> 
> No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.


*(COMMENT)*

You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the  Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.  While everyone concerned or involved in the development_ (1920 to the present)_ shared some of the responsibility for the failure of the Arab Palestinian people.   It was almost as if the "failures" of the Arab Palestinian were in fact the outcome of their intentional self-determination _(political/diplomatic suicide)_.  And even though this might sound absurd, *suicide is a behavior quite well known in the Arab Palestinian culture*.  

I was reading the book, The Daughters of Olive, and I "first" noticed the dedication.  I noticed how elegant the presentation of the book imparted.

Dedicated to
The Great Spirits of the Martyrs
Dr. Abdulaziz al-Rentissi,
Sheikh Ahmed Yaseen
and
The Daughters of Olive

It was a book dedicated to the nine courageous women suicide bombers.  That was not to include the Special Note on everyone's favorite:

A special note on
_Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi_
Date of Martyrdom: 11th March, 1978



"Point your guns in only one direction-your enemy -Israel," urged Martyr Dalal Al Mughrabi in her final wish just before she laid down her life for the liberation of her occupied homeland, Palestine.​​Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi was the first female commander in the history of the struggle of the Palestinian nation against the Zionist aggressors. She became a legend of courage and a symbol of resistance and martyrdom for the   Palestinian nation for many years.​
I noticed how much it reminded me of another Iconic terrorist:




 Dr Che Guerrero Md​
Footnote
Social Research *Vol. 75, No. 2, Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Denial (SUMMER 2008)*, pp. 395-416 (22 pages)    
Published By: The Johns Hopkins University Press


			https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972069
		


References

*Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis*








						Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis
					

Death as a "Martyr" for Allah has been promoted as an ideal by the PA for years




					palwatch.org
				



Nov 07, 2019 · *Death as* a "*Martyr*" for Allah and for "*Palestine*" - during terror attacks and other violent confrontations with Israel - has been promoted as an ideal by the *Palestinian* Authority for years, as documented by *Palestinian* Media Watch. The elevated status "*Martyrs*" enjoy in the PA was recently stressed by a host on official PA TV, who bragged that "*Martyrdom in Palestine* is unique," because a *Martyr's* …
*Family Of Palestinian Suicide Bomber Celebrates Her ...*


			https://www
		

.*memri*.org/tv/family-palestinian-*suicide*-bomber-hanadi-jaradat-father...
On October 8, 2019, *Al-Quds Al-Youm TV* (*Palestine* – Islamic Jihad) aired a report about Hanadi Jaradat, a *Palestinian* woman from Jenin who carried out a *suicide* bombing in a restaurant in Haifa on October 4, 2003. Hanadi’s *mother*, who was interviewed in the report, praised Allah for having given Hanadi what she had asked for, and Hanadi’s brother said that his father had handed out …
*Why do some terrorist organizations use suicide bombing ...*
gppreview.com/2020/05/11/terrorist-organizations-use-*suicide*-bombing-others-not
May 11, 2020 · As *Palestinian animosity* toward Israel increased in the early 2000s, so too did support for radical groups and *suicide tactics*. Culture of *Martyrdom*. The most convincing explanation is that *suicide terrorism* exploits a transnational ideological reverence for *martyrdom*.
*Martyrdom in the Context of the Palestinian National ...*


			https://oldwebsite
		

.*palestine*-studies.org/resources/special-focus/*martyrdom*-context...
Not all *martyrs* were combatants or partisans. A young *Palestinian boy*, Ahmad Hassam Yusuf Musa, killed near Ramallah in 2008 was, like all *Palestinians killed* by Israel, remembered as a martyr. His poster does not carry the insignia of any political faction or any liberation slogans.
*PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are ...*








						PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are settlers; Israel's demise is certain | PMW Analysis
					

Palestinians have “natural right” to “fight in Haifa, Jaffa, and Be’er Sheva”




					palwatch.org
				



Dec 17, 2020 · In two recent broadcasts, the PA reiterated its internal narrative that it tries to hide from the international community: All of Israel is Palestinian land - including Safed, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa: [Official PA TV, Good Morning Jerusalem, Dec. …






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I think this is part of your perceptual problem. While I can agree in principle that no country or people holds a perfect record in making political, economic, industrial, diplomatic and military (etc) decisions, in the case of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_; nearly every decision they made was not in the best interest of the people or the potential for nation-building.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.
> 
> No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the  Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.  While everyone concerned or involved in the development_ (1920 to the present)_ shared some of the responsibility for the failure of the Arab Palestinian people.   It was almost as if the "failures" of the Arab Palestinian were in fact the outcome of their intentional self-determination _(political/diplomatic suicide)_.  And even though this might sound absurd, *suicide is a behavior quite well known in the Arab Palestinian culture*.
> 
> I was reading the book, The Daughters of Olive, and I "first" noticed the dedication.  I noticed how elegant the presentation of the book imparted.
> 
> Dedicated to
> The Great Spirits of the Martyrs
> Dr. Abdulaziz al-Rentissi,
> Sheikh Ahmed Yaseen
> and
> The Daughters of Olive
> 
> It was a book dedicated to the nine courageous women suicide bombers.  That was not to include the Special Note on everyone's favorite:
> 
> A special note on
> _Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi_
> Date of Martyrdom: 11th March, 1978
> View attachment 434683​
> "Point your guns in only one direction-your enemy -Israel," urged Martyr Dalal Al Mughrabi in her final wish just before she laid down her life for the liberation of her occupied homeland, Palestine.​​Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi was the first female commander in the history of the struggle of the Palestinian nation against the Zionist aggressors. She became a legend of courage and a symbol of resistance and martyrdom for the   Palestinian nation for many years.​
> I noticed how much it reminded me of another Iconic terrorist:
> 
> View attachment 434688
> Dr Che Guerrero Md​
> Footnote
> Social Research *Vol. 75, No. 2, Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Denial (SUMMER 2008)*, pp. 395-416 (22 pages)
> Published By: The Johns Hopkins University Press
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972069
> 
> 
> 
> References
> 
> *Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Death as a "Martyr" for Allah has been promoted as an ideal by the PA for years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 07, 2019 · *Death as* a "*Martyr*" for Allah and for "*Palestine*" - during terror attacks and other violent confrontations with Israel - has been promoted as an ideal by the *Palestinian* Authority for years, as documented by *Palestinian* Media Watch. The elevated status "*Martyrs*" enjoy in the PA was recently stressed by a host on official PA TV, who bragged that "*Martyrdom in Palestine* is unique," because a *Martyr's* …
> *Family Of Palestinian Suicide Bomber Celebrates Her ...*
> 
> 
> https://www
> 
> 
> .*memri*.org/tv/family-palestinian-*suicide*-bomber-hanadi-jaradat-father...
> On October 8, 2019, *Al-Quds Al-Youm TV* (*Palestine* – Islamic Jihad) aired a report about Hanadi Jaradat, a *Palestinian* woman from Jenin who carried out a *suicide* bombing in a restaurant in Haifa on October 4, 2003. Hanadi’s *mother*, who was interviewed in the report, praised Allah for having given Hanadi what she had asked for, and Hanadi’s brother said that his father had handed out …
> *Why do some terrorist organizations use suicide bombing ...*
> gppreview.com/2020/05/11/terrorist-organizations-use-*suicide*-bombing-others-not
> May 11, 2020 · As *Palestinian animosity* toward Israel increased in the early 2000s, so too did support for radical groups and *suicide tactics*. Culture of *Martyrdom*. The most convincing explanation is that *suicide terrorism* exploits a transnational ideological reverence for *martyrdom*.
> *Martyrdom in the Context of the Palestinian National ...*
> 
> 
> https://oldwebsite
> 
> 
> .*palestine*-studies.org/resources/special-focus/*martyrdom*-context...
> Not all *martyrs* were combatants or partisans. A young *Palestinian boy*, Ahmad Hassam Yusuf Musa, killed near Ramallah in 2008 was, like all *Palestinians killed* by Israel, remembered as a martyr. His poster does not carry the insignia of any political faction or any liberation slogans.
> *PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are settlers; Israel's demise is certain | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Palestinians have “natural right” to “fight in Haifa, Jaffa, and Be’er Sheva”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 17, 2020 · In two recent broadcasts, the PA reiterated its internal narrative that it tries to hide from the international community: All of Israel is Palestinian land - including Safed, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa: [Official PA TV, Good Morning Jerusalem, Dec. …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Is slime the only thing you can post?



RoccoR said:


> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.


You keep shoveling Israeli shit.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I think this is part of your perceptual problem. While I can agree in principle that no country or people holds a perfect record in making political, economic, industrial, diplomatic and military (etc) decisions, in the case of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_; nearly every decision they made was not in the best interest of the people or the potential for nation-building.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.
> 
> No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the  Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.  While everyone concerned or involved in the development_ (1920 to the present)_ shared some of the responsibility for the failure of the Arab Palestinian people.   It was almost as if the "failures" of the Arab Palestinian were in fact the outcome of their intentional self-determination _(political/diplomatic suicide)_.  And even though this might sound absurd, *suicide is a behavior quite well known in the Arab Palestinian culture*.
> 
> I was reading the book, The Daughters of Olive, and I "first" noticed the dedication.  I noticed how elegant the presentation of the book imparted.
> 
> Dedicated to
> The Great Spirits of the Martyrs
> Dr. Abdulaziz al-Rentissi,
> Sheikh Ahmed Yaseen
> and
> The Daughters of Olive
> 
> It was a book dedicated to the nine courageous women suicide bombers.  That was not to include the Special Note on everyone's favorite:
> 
> A special note on
> _Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi_
> Date of Martyrdom: 11th March, 1978
> View attachment 434683​
> "Point your guns in only one direction-your enemy -Israel," urged Martyr Dalal Al Mughrabi in her final wish just before she laid down her life for the liberation of her occupied homeland, Palestine.​​Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi was the first female commander in the history of the struggle of the Palestinian nation against the Zionist aggressors. She became a legend of courage and a symbol of resistance and martyrdom for the   Palestinian nation for many years.​
> I noticed how much it reminded me of another Iconic terrorist:
> 
> View attachment 434688
> Dr Che Guerrero Md​
> Footnote
> Social Research *Vol. 75, No. 2, Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Denial (SUMMER 2008)*, pp. 395-416 (22 pages)
> Published By: The Johns Hopkins University Press
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972069
> 
> 
> 
> References
> 
> *Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Death as a "Martyr" for Allah has been promoted as an ideal by the PA for years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 07, 2019 · *Death as* a "*Martyr*" for Allah and for "*Palestine*" - during terror attacks and other violent confrontations with Israel - has been promoted as an ideal by the *Palestinian* Authority for years, as documented by *Palestinian* Media Watch. The elevated status "*Martyrs*" enjoy in the PA was recently stressed by a host on official PA TV, who bragged that "*Martyrdom in Palestine* is unique," because a *Martyr's* …
> *Family Of Palestinian Suicide Bomber Celebrates Her ...*
> 
> 
> https://www
> 
> 
> .*memri*.org/tv/family-palestinian-*suicide*-bomber-hanadi-jaradat-father...
> On October 8, 2019, *Al-Quds Al-Youm TV* (*Palestine* – Islamic Jihad) aired a report about Hanadi Jaradat, a *Palestinian* woman from Jenin who carried out a *suicide* bombing in a restaurant in Haifa on October 4, 2003. Hanadi’s *mother*, who was interviewed in the report, praised Allah for having given Hanadi what she had asked for, and Hanadi’s brother said that his father had handed out …
> *Why do some terrorist organizations use suicide bombing ...*
> gppreview.com/2020/05/11/terrorist-organizations-use-*suicide*-bombing-others-not
> May 11, 2020 · As *Palestinian animosity* toward Israel increased in the early 2000s, so too did support for radical groups and *suicide tactics*. Culture of *Martyrdom*. The most convincing explanation is that *suicide terrorism* exploits a transnational ideological reverence for *martyrdom*.
> *Martyrdom in the Context of the Palestinian National ...*
> 
> 
> https://oldwebsite
> 
> 
> .*palestine*-studies.org/resources/special-focus/*martyrdom*-context...
> Not all *martyrs* were combatants or partisans. A young *Palestinian boy*, Ahmad Hassam Yusuf Musa, killed near Ramallah in 2008 was, like all *Palestinians killed* by Israel, remembered as a martyr. His poster does not carry the insignia of any political faction or any liberation slogans.
> *PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are settlers; Israel's demise is certain | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Palestinians have “natural right” to “fight in Haifa, Jaffa, and Be’er Sheva”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 17, 2020 · In two recent broadcasts, the PA reiterated its internal narrative that it tries to hide from the international community: All of Israel is Palestinian land - including Safed, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa: [Official PA TV, Good Morning Jerusalem, Dec. …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is slime the only thing you can post?
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep shoveling Israeli shit.
Click to expand...

Emotional outbursts that would embarrass a 12 year old.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: Epistemologically, there are four ‘classical’ theories to the concept of "truth."  Truth is not the same everywhere at the same time - or - across all timelines. 

*Correspondence Theory * → What we describe is an accurate description of what is observable. (Ex •-• The Scientific Method)
*Coherent Theory * → What is a product of deductive reasoning, from one premise set (sound and valid) leading to a logical conclusion that cannot be false. (Ex •-• Sherlock Holmes: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.)
*Consensus Theory *→ What is true is what is generally agreed upon as true. (Ex •-• The Big Bang Theory) 
*Pragmatic Theory *→ What is true is what is useful or beneficial to a closed set. (Ex •-• A legal Fallacy)



P F Tinmore said:


> Is slime the only thing you can post?


*(COMMENT)*

As far as I can tell, the pro-Palestinian Cause ignores actual history (the Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the creation of self-governing institutions) and claim they were denied some undefined right.  In the Correspondence Theory of Truth, the Arab Palestinian Claim to not match the history of what actually happened.

The pro-Palestinian Cause makes a leap that all the problems now experienced by the Arab Palestinian people are related to the territory partitioning and occupation.  That the land was actually sovereign unto the Arab Palestinian on the termination of the Mandate and did not transfer to the International Trustee System.  This is contradictory to the Coherence Theory.

The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine.  And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.

The Consensus is derived through the Pragmatic Theory of Truth because it fits and supports their argument.



RoccoR said:


> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.





P F Tinmore said:


> You keep shoveling Israeli shit.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a common _ad Hominem_ response that is projected about the _(believed)_ source → without an examination of the content. This is referred to as a Philosophical Fallacy. The original commentary under the ad Hominem cited a number of sources and references that helped lead to the conclusion through the Coherent Theory of the Truth _(supra)_. 





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I think this is part of your perceptual problem. While I can agree in principle that no country or people holds a perfect record in making political, economic, industrial, diplomatic and military (etc) decisions, in the case of the Arab Higher Committee _(AHC or AKA: Arab Palestinians)_; nearly every decision they made was not in the best interest of the people or the potential for nation-building.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Palestine was under military rule, by the worlds superpower, all during the mandate period. All of their institution were dismantled and their leaders were arrested, exiled. or killed.
> 
> No surprise that they did not create any government. You just call it incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the  Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.  While everyone concerned or involved in the development_ (1920 to the present)_ shared some of the responsibility for the failure of the Arab Palestinian people.   It was almost as if the "failures" of the Arab Palestinian were in fact the outcome of their intentional self-determination _(political/diplomatic suicide)_.  And even though this might sound absurd, *suicide is a behavior quite well known in the Arab Palestinian culture*.
> 
> I was reading the book, The Daughters of Olive, and I "first" noticed the dedication.  I noticed how elegant the presentation of the book imparted.
> 
> Dedicated to
> The Great Spirits of the Martyrs
> Dr. Abdulaziz al-Rentissi,
> Sheikh Ahmed Yaseen
> and
> The Daughters of Olive
> 
> It was a book dedicated to the nine courageous women suicide bombers.  That was not to include the Special Note on everyone's favorite:
> 
> A special note on
> _Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi_
> Date of Martyrdom: 11th March, 1978
> View attachment 434683​
> "Point your guns in only one direction-your enemy -Israel," urged Martyr Dalal Al Mughrabi in her final wish just before she laid down her life for the liberation of her occupied homeland, Palestine.​​Martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi was the first female commander in the history of the struggle of the Palestinian nation against the Zionist aggressors. She became a legend of courage and a symbol of resistance and martyrdom for the   Palestinian nation for many years.​
> I noticed how much it reminded me of another Iconic terrorist:
> 
> View attachment 434688
> Dr Che Guerrero Md​
> Footnote
> Social Research *Vol. 75, No. 2, Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Denial (SUMMER 2008)*, pp. 395-416 (22 pages)
> Published By: The Johns Hopkins University Press
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972069
> 
> 
> 
> References
> 
> *Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Martyrdom-death “unique in Palestine”? | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Death as a "Martyr" for Allah has been promoted as an ideal by the PA for years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 07, 2019 · *Death as* a "*Martyr*" for Allah and for "*Palestine*" - during terror attacks and other violent confrontations with Israel - has been promoted as an ideal by the *Palestinian* Authority for years, as documented by *Palestinian* Media Watch. The elevated status "*Martyrs*" enjoy in the PA was recently stressed by a host on official PA TV, who bragged that "*Martyrdom in Palestine* is unique," because a *Martyr's* …
> *Family Of Palestinian Suicide Bomber Celebrates Her ...*
> 
> 
> https://www
> 
> 
> .*memri*.org/tv/family-palestinian-*suicide*-bomber-hanadi-jaradat-father...
> On October 8, 2019, *Al-Quds Al-Youm TV* (*Palestine* – Islamic Jihad) aired a report about Hanadi Jaradat, a *Palestinian* woman from Jenin who carried out a *suicide* bombing in a restaurant in Haifa on October 4, 2003. Hanadi’s *mother*, who was interviewed in the report, praised Allah for having given Hanadi what she had asked for, and Hanadi’s brother said that his father had handed out …
> *Why do some terrorist organizations use suicide bombing ...*
> gppreview.com/2020/05/11/terrorist-organizations-use-*suicide*-bombing-others-not
> May 11, 2020 · As *Palestinian animosity* toward Israel increased in the early 2000s, so too did support for radical groups and *suicide tactics*. Culture of *Martyrdom*. The most convincing explanation is that *suicide terrorism* exploits a transnational ideological reverence for *martyrdom*.
> *Martyrdom in the Context of the Palestinian National ...*
> 
> 
> https://oldwebsite
> 
> 
> .*palestine*-studies.org/resources/special-focus/*martyrdom*-context...
> Not all *martyrs* were combatants or partisans. A young *Palestinian boy*, Ahmad Hassam Yusuf Musa, killed near Ramallah in 2008 was, like all *Palestinians killed* by Israel, remembered as a martyr. His poster does not carry the insignia of any political faction or any liberation slogans.
> *PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA: All Israel is “our land Palestine”; All Israelis are settlers; Israel's demise is certain | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> Palestinians have “natural right” to “fight in Haifa, Jaffa, and Be’er Sheva”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 17, 2020 · In two recent broadcasts, the PA reiterated its internal narrative that it tries to hide from the international community: All of Israel is Palestinian land - including Safed, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa: [Official PA TV, Good Morning Jerusalem, Dec. …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is slime the only thing you can post?
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend all you want that the development of the Arab Palestinian People or their ability to build a nation, since 1920, was retarded because the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in creating self-governing institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep shoveling Israeli shit.
Click to expand...

Notice how every time Rocco dismantles every single one of your ridiculous posts, all you can do is come up with your usual ‘ shovelling Israeli shit’ reply. 
You simply can NEVER come up with something that contradicts what Rocco says.

I don’t even know why you bother posting here when you know nothing about nothing .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Article 42 Hague Regulation*Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.


Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.


Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... but enough about the Hamas Charter and the history of Islamism.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the Hamas lady posts again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.


And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"Palestinian: Beyond Conflict"*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 42 Hague Regulation*Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is the 1948 occupation and the 1967 occupation.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There is a *huge difference* between:
> 
> *(Ω)  *The prevention of the_ Incitement to Violence and Hatred_  'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​_*(Ω)  *_Pursuing the international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes _Incitement to Discrimination and Hostility_ 'vs' _Criminalizing Dissent_​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CRIMINALIZING DISSENT: THE ATTACK ON BDS AND PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, let's make it clear at the outset:  "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." This is just fancy window dressing to cover for the fact that it is non-state actors that forge a form of economic coercion and intimidation, especially against the civilian citizenry, in the pursuit of political aims.  The hidden agenda is the direct support of the violent counterpart factions.
> 
> *(WHAT IS THE LAW) *
> 
> Let's not twist this issue into something it is not.  It is NOT an attack on free speech.  (It is that simple.)  And don't let them (BDS) kid you that it is.
> 
> _*◈  Article 20   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*_​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​_*◈  Article 4   International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:​​_*◈  Article 5  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)*_​In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:​​(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:​(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;​
> The BDS Movement is a form of economic warfare with the intent of trying to impose economic sanctions against Israel.  While the status and boundaries of the State of Palestine has not been resolved,* the faction won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Parliament (76 of 132) openly has a policy* that Palestine _(which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south)_ is an Arab Islamic land.  They do not see the State of Israel holding any sovereignty.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are essentially supporting the demise of the State of Israel.
> 
> The dispute here is between those that support the Arab Islamic Land 'vs' Israeli Sovereignty.  To oppose the BDS Movement is to undertake to protections and rights of the regional minority (the Israelis) and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to function under the International Covenants (CCPR/CERD).
> 
> *(ONE FURTHER NOTE)*
> 
> The goal of international law, relative to the Palestinian - Israeli dispute, is the maintain international peace and security.  While most of the world _(including those in the Middle East and North African Region)_ is working towards normalization, it is the Arab Palestinians the oppose such peaceful interaction.  When you support the BDS Movement, you are on the side opposing normalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ​View attachment 434280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not about discrimination. It is about colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... but enough about the Hamas Charter and the history of Islamism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, the Hamas lady posts again.
Click to expand...

That was quite a sidestep. You cut and pasted your usual slogans about ''colonialism, occupation, and apartheid'' aimed at Israel and as we see whenever you are tasked with providing specific examples, you fail to do so.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: And again, I don't think you can find such an example where I "start dancing." My answers have been consistently the same and revolve around the victor's intent for the post-War.

◈  Paris Peace Conference (1919)​◈  Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​◈  Section VII, Treaty of Sevres and Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)​◈  Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention (Dec 1920)​◈  Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (October 1921)​◈  Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​
These six references are the "KEY" means of evidence.  I have presented them in this form many, many times.  I can only assume that you are have intellectual problems in stringing the datum together.



RoccoR said:


> The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.





P F Tinmore said:


> And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.


*(COMMENT)*

At the end of the day, Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923), show the intent and the acknowledgment wherein the Defeated (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounces all rights and title to the territory and recognizes the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.  In this case, the "parties concerned" are identified in the preamble.  As you can see the Arab Palestinians or any other entity representing the Arab Palestinians are not included in the "parties to the treaty."  

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue.  The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."  

All six KEY documents show that there was a consistent intent on the part of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to further the Mandate (which they authored. Nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians and the Allied Powers had no specific obligation to the Arab Palestinians.  Article 22 of the Covenant was a set of agreements between the members of the league; not between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  

As previously discussed, the obligation to provide "tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations" was rejected several times by the Allied Powers.  Thus negating any implication of a further obligation.

Again, all of this has been explained several times.  There has been no dancing around the central issue.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: And again, I don't think you can find such an example where I "start dancing." My answers have been consistently the same and revolve around the victor's intent for the post-War.
> 
> ◈  Paris Peace Conference (1919)​◈  Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​◈  Section VII, Treaty of Sevres and Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)​◈  Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention (Dec 1920)​◈  Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (October 1921)​◈  Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​
> These six references are the "KEY" means of evidence.  I have presented them in this form many, many times.  I can only assume that you are have intellectual problems in stringing the datum together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the end of the day, Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923), show the intent and the acknowledgment wherein the Defeated (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounces all rights and title to the territory and recognizes the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.  In this case, the "parties concerned" are identified in the preamble.  As you can see the Arab Palestinians or any other entity representing the Arab Palestinians are not included in the "parties to the treaty."
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue.  The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> All six KEY documents show that there was a consistent intent on the part of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to further the Mandate (which they authored. Nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians and the Allied Powers had no specific obligation to the Arab Palestinians.  Article 22 of the Covenant was a set of agreements between the members of the league; not between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> As previously discussed, the obligation to provide "tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations" was rejected several times by the Allied Powers.  Thus negating any implication of a further obligation.
> 
> Again, all of this has been explained several times.  There has been no dancing around the central issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."


Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.

But keep dancing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: And again, I don't think you can find such an example where I "start dancing." My answers have been consistently the same and revolve around the victor's intent for the post-War.
> 
> ◈  Paris Peace Conference (1919)​◈  Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​◈  Section VII, Treaty of Sevres and Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)​◈  Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention (Dec 1920)​◈  Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (October 1921)​◈  Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​
> These six references are the "KEY" means of evidence.  I have presented them in this form many, many times.  I can only assume that you are have intellectual problems in stringing the datum together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the end of the day, Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923), show the intent and the acknowledgment wherein the Defeated (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounces all rights and title to the territory and recognizes the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.  In this case, the "parties concerned" are identified in the preamble.  As you can see the Arab Palestinians or any other entity representing the Arab Palestinians are not included in the "parties to the treaty."
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue.  The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> All six KEY documents show that there was a consistent intent on the part of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to further the Mandate (which they authored. Nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians and the Allied Powers had no specific obligation to the Arab Palestinians.  Article 22 of the Covenant was a set of agreements between the members of the league; not between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> As previously discussed, the obligation to provide "tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations" was rejected several times by the Allied Powers.  Thus negating any implication of a further obligation.
> 
> Again, all of this has been explained several times.  There has been no dancing around the central issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> 
> But keep dancing.
Click to expand...

I saw no mention of annexation except yours. It seems you have a continuing problem of not comprehending what is provided to you.

I see a continuing pattern of your need to press an agenda that disregards facts and the historical record.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:

◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*​
[/QUOTE]


RoccoR said:


> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."





P F Tinmore said:


> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> But keep dancing.


*(COMMENT)*
*SECTION  I*
――――
*TERRITORIAL  CLAUSES*
――――​◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*

*Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.* The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​​The "parties"  (ie concerned parties)  to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: Keeping in mind these timelines and these two KEY References:

◈  Paris Peace Conference (Principal Allied and Associated Powers) Treaty of The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919​◈  The Covenant of the League of Nations was actually Part I in the Treaty of Versailles.  (Effective January 1920)​◈  Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​◈  Final Amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations adopted (December 1924)​​


RoccoR said:


> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."





P F Tinmore said:


> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> But keep dancing.


*(QUESTION)*

Just for the sake of an argument:  Suppose the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in general (1919), and the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (1920), had decided to exercise annexation authority →

_Q:  What would have prevented them from doing so?_​
If the Supreme Council had decided early on that they would establish Mandate Territories as "official colonies" what would have prevented them from doing so?  After all, nothing in any of the KEY References Though most Mandates defined a distinction between a Mandate Territory and a Colony as it is...  They were the authors of their own international instruments. And remember, the Allied Powers were still writing amendments to the League of Nations Covenant in December 1924. If they wanted, they could have altered it at any time. The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers simply chose not to alter the Covenant, but to make it flexible in its application.  But even as it is:

_Q:  What would have prevented the Mandatory Powers from turning the Mandate Territories into colonies extending their sovereignty over them?_​




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation*



liberation? The Hamas Charter calls for elimination of Israel.

Why is it up to me to teach you your koran’ology, Islamic history and Hamas Charters?



			https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm
		


        "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."       
The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liberation? The Hamas Charter calls for elimination of Israel.
> 
> Why is it up to me to teach you your koran’ology, Islamic history and Hamas Charters?
> 
> 
> 
> https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm
> 
> 
> 
> "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
> The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:
> 
> ◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*​





RoccoR said:


> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."





P F Tinmore said:


> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> But keep dancing.


*(COMMENT)*
*SECTION  I*
――――
*TERRITORIAL  CLAUSES*
――――​◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*

*Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.* The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​​The "parties"  (ie concerned parties)  to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.






Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]


RoccoR said:


> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*


You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:
> 
> ◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> But keep dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> *SECTION  I*
> ――――
> *TERRITORIAL  CLAUSES*
> ――――​◈ * Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)*
> 
> *Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.* The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​​The "parties"  (ie concerned parties)  to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*


You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.
[/QUOTE]
What new states? You have ducked, dodged and avoided that question?

What
new
states?

The
one
you 
have
invented
but 
has 
never
existed?

Link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: And again, I don't think you can find such an example where I "start dancing." My answers have been consistently the same and revolve around the victor's intent for the post-War.
> 
> ◈  Paris Peace Conference (1919)​◈  Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​◈  Section VII, Treaty of Sevres and Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)​◈  Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention (Dec 1920)​◈  Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (October 1921)​◈  Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​
> These six references are the "KEY" means of evidence.  I have presented them in this form many, many times.  I can only assume that you are have intellectual problems in stringing the datum together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the end of the day, Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923), show the intent and the acknowledgment wherein the Defeated (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounces all rights and title to the territory and recognizes the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.  In this case, the "parties concerned" are identified in the preamble.  As you can see the Arab Palestinians or any other entity representing the Arab Palestinians are not included in the "parties to the treaty."
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue.  The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> All six KEY documents show that there was a consistent intent on the part of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to further the Mandate (which they authored. Nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians and the Allied Powers had no specific obligation to the Arab Palestinians.  Article 22 of the Covenant was a set of agreements between the members of the league; not between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> As previously discussed, the obligation to provide "tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations" was rejected several times by the Allied Powers.  Thus negating any implication of a further obligation.
> 
> Again, all of this has been explained several times.  There has been no dancing around the central issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
> 
> But keep dancing.
Click to expand...

All Rocco does is post facts with links. All you do is post videos and make the same bullshit claims.
Who’s really dancing ??


Hint: It’s you...


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.



RoccoR said:


> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*





P F Tinmore said:


> You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.
> 
> Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.


*(COMMENT)*
​A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement;  "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;"  Article 2, *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*.

​


			
				‘Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law’ said:
			
		

> ​
> SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455  ​
> Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
> ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​
> ​


​
The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine.  Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty.  I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses).  Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.  

The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the _*UN International Trusteeship System*_ according to the Charter (Article 77).

If you revied the *UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012*, you will discover that:



READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly.   Digest it all before going further.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.
> 
> Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement;  "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;"  Article 2, *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law’ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 435109​
> SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455  ​
> Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
> ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine.  Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty.  I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses).  Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.
> 
> The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the _*UN International Trusteeship System*_ according to the Charter (Article 77).
> 
> If you revied the *UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012*, you will discover that:
> 
> View attachment 435115​READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly.   Digest it all before going further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Recognition by the UN does not create a state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.
> 
> Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement;  "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;"  Article 2, *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law’ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 435109​
> SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455  ​
> Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
> ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine.  Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty.  I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses).  Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.
> 
> The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the _*UN International Trusteeship System*_ according to the Charter (Article 77).
> 
> If you revied the *UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012*, you will discover that:
> 
> View attachment 435115​READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly.   Digest it all before going further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? 

You are ducking my question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.
> 
> Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement;  "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;"  Article 2, *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law’ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 435109​
> SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455  ​
> Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
> ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine.  Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty.  I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses).  Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.
> 
> The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the _*UN International Trusteeship System*_ according to the Charter (Article 77).
> 
> If you revied the *UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012*, you will discover that:
> 
> View attachment 435115​READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly.   Digest it all before going further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states?
> 
> You are ducking my question.
Click to expand...

New states?

What was that about ducking?

What new states?

link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​​◈  A Permanent Population​​◈  A Defined Territory​​◈  A Government​​◈  The capacity for Diplomacy​




P F Tinmore said:


> Recognition by the UN does not create a state.


*(COMMENT)*

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦  Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​​✦  Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​​◈  A Permanent Population​​◈  A Defined Territory​​◈  A Government​​◈  The capacity for Diplomacy​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recognition by the UN does not create a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
> 
> ✦  Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​​✦  Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
> 
> ✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.


Interesting opinion.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​​◈  A Permanent Population​​◈  A Defined Territory​​◈  A Government​​◈  The capacity for Diplomacy​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recognition by the UN does not create a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
> 
> ✦  Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​​✦  Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
> 
> ✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting opinion.
Click to expand...


About those new states. 

Anything?

Are you wearing your dancing shoes?

What new states?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


I didn't see anything in the YouTube video about those new states you referred to. 

Just the name of one of those new states would be helpful. 

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: After December 2012, things get blurry...



RoccoR said:


> When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
> ✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.





P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting opinion.


*(COMMENT)*

I actually do not see a difference between the status of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1995 _(establishment of Areas "A" • "B" • "C")_.

Yes, the Gaza Strip was abandoned (2005) by the Israelis.  That was not much different from when Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  The KEY there was that Israel allowed the sovereignty to be established by the Gazans by default.  Just as Jordan left the Israelis to govern by default.

So, I'm assuming that the view of the court will be consistent with the need to determine:

If there is a functioning government?

What territory does the State of Palestine _(Ramallah Government + Gaza Government)_ hold such control _(governmental power over and above)_ that no other external government can control?  

Remembering that the West Bank and Jerusalem were taken from the Jordanians and NOT from the Arabs of the West Bank and Jerusalem.  So the issue of Israel taking control is really not subject to dispute or debate.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"It Is Called Apartheid" - Rep. Betty McCollum Speech at USCPR National Conference*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> What territory does the State of Palestine _(Ramallah Government + Gaza Government)_ hold such control _(governmental power over and above)_ that no other external government can control?


They don't. It's called military occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> After December 2012, things get blurry...


Maybe for you...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After December 2012, things get blurry...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you...
Click to expand...

So... I'm left to presume that your repeated claims to some 'new states' is false. You cannot identify any new states so why make such a claim?

Why the need to repeatedly make false claims?


----------



## toastman

Hey Tinmore, you were asked several times to stop dancing and provide links for this ‘state’ you keep talking about...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After December 2012, things get blurry...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... I'm left to presume that your repeated claims to some 'new states' is false. You cannot identify any new states so why make such a claim?
> 
> Why the need to repeatedly make false claims?
Click to expand...




			https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/League-of-Nations-Mandate.pdf


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After December 2012, things get blurry...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... I'm left to presume that your repeated claims to some 'new states' is false. You cannot identify any new states so why make such a claim?
> 
> Why the need to repeatedly make false claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/League-of-Nations-Mandate.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL wtf was that?? You were asked to post a link about a state and you come up with this link that proves nothing ? 
What a surprise, another day of you not backing up your bullshit claims . Keep on dancing Tinmore, keep on dancing .....


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After December 2012, things get blurry...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... I'm left to presume that your repeated claims to some 'new states' is false. You cannot identify any new states so why make such a claim?
> 
> Why the need to repeatedly make false claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/League-of-Nations-Mandate.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL wtf was that?? You were asked to post a link about a state and you come up with this link that proves nothing ?
> What a surprise, another day of you not backing up your bullshit claims . Keep on dancing Tinmore, keep on dancing .....
Click to expand...

Did you try reading it?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: OK, Let's back-up... Simple question Asked by our friends *Hollie* and *Toastman*...



P F Tinmore said:


> Did you try reading it?


*(OUTSTANDING QUESTION TO ANSWER)*

Q:  What new states?  •  *Posting #972*

*(COMMENT)*

Using a "TERRITORIAL CLAUSE" and NOT a "NATURALIZATION CLAUSE" → what obligation did the Allied Powers owe the Arabs of Palestine that you claim today?

Just be straightforward and tell us exactly what obligation or political requirement dictates that the Arabs of Palestine are owed territory and a country?

What is the official claim by the Arab Palestinians they make that justifies hostilities and violence?

BE SPECIFIC! 






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After December 2012, things get blurry...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... I'm left to presume that your repeated claims to some 'new states' is false. You cannot identify any new states so why make such a claim?
> 
> Why the need to repeatedly make false claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/League-of-Nations-Mandate.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL wtf was that?? You were asked to post a link about a state and you come up with this link that proves nothing ?
> What a surprise, another day of you not backing up your bullshit claims . Keep on dancing Tinmore, keep on dancing .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you try reading it?
Click to expand...

The question is: "did you read it''?

So... I was hoping you would give us a list of those ''new states''. 

Link?

Those ''new states'' would likely have, you know, names to help identify them. 

Anything yet on those 'new states'?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, Let's back-up... Simple question Asked by our friends *Hollie* and *Toastman*...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try reading it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OUTSTANDING QUESTION TO ANSWER)*
> 
> Q:  What new states?  •  *Posting #972*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Using a "TERRITORIAL CLAUSE" and NOT a "NATURALIZATION CLAUSE" → what obligation did the Allied Powers owe the Arabs of Palestine that you claim today?
> 
> Just be straightforward and tell us exactly what obligation or political requirement dictates that the Arabs of Palestine are owed territory and a country?
> 
> What is the official claim by the Arab Palestinians they make that justifies hostilities and violence?
> 
> BE SPECIFIC!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.

What part of this confuses you?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, Let's back-up... Simple question Asked by our friends *Hollie* and *Toastman*...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try reading it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OUTSTANDING QUESTION TO ANSWER)*
> 
> Q:  What new states?  •  *Posting #972*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Using a "TERRITORIAL CLAUSE" and NOT a "NATURALIZATION CLAUSE" → what obligation did the Allied Powers owe the Arabs of Palestine that you claim today?
> 
> Just be straightforward and tell us exactly what obligation or political requirement dictates that the Arabs of Palestine are owed territory and a country?
> 
> What is the official claim by the Arab Palestinians they make that justifies hostilities and violence?
> 
> BE SPECIFIC!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
Click to expand...

After having that nonsense refuted dozens of times, why the buffoonish need to play that card again?


Anything yet on those “new states”?

link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*US and Palestine: Shoot to Kill Policies and Transnational Resistance | Continuing the Conversations*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *US and Palestine: Shoot to Kill Policies and Transnational Resistance | Continuing the Conversations*



“Afrikana Studies”.

OK, dear. How about a nice hot cup of tea and a nap.

Did you find the names of those “new states” yet?

link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: You did not answer the question.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?


*(COMMENT)*

What Treaty do the Arabs of Palestine have that outlines the boundary of an Arab Palestine?

The Arab Palestinians have rejected everything up and until the Oslo Accords.

Let's the specific Treaty to which you refer.  Which one (or more) are you making reference?





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US and Palestine: Shoot to Kill Policies and Transnational Resistance | Continuing the Conversations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Afrikana Studies”.
> 
> OK, dear. How about a nice hot cup of tea and a nap.
> 
> Did you find the names of those “new states” yet?
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

Sure, they are in the link I posted.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US and Palestine: Shoot to Kill Policies and Transnational Resistance | Continuing the Conversations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Afrikana Studies”.
> 
> OK, dear. How about a nice hot cup of tea and a nap.
> 
> Did you find the names of those “new states” yet?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, they are in the link I posted.
Click to expand...


You know that is not true so why perpetrate that fraud?

What are the names of the ‘new states’? I would assume your claimed ‘new states’ would have names so they can be identified.

link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, Let's back-up... Simple question Asked by our friends *Hollie* and *Toastman*...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try reading it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OUTSTANDING QUESTION TO ANSWER)*
> 
> Q:  What new states?  •  *Posting #972*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Using a "TERRITORIAL CLAUSE" and NOT a "NATURALIZATION CLAUSE" → what obligation did the Allied Powers owe the Arabs of Palestine that you claim today?
> 
> Just be straightforward and tell us exactly what obligation or political requirement dictates that the Arabs of Palestine are owed territory and a country?
> 
> What is the official claim by the Arab Palestinians they make that justifies hostilities and violence?
> 
> BE SPECIFIC!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
Click to expand...

Are these Pal treaties in the possession of the “new states” you claim exist but can’t identify?

link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You did not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What Treaty do the Arabs of Palestine have that outlines the boundary of an Arab Palestine?
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have rejected everything up and until the Oslo Accords.
> 
> Let's the specific Treaty to which you refer.  Which one (or more) are you making reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Now you are acting stupid.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You did not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What Treaty do the Arabs of Palestine have that outlines the boundary of an Arab Palestine?
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have rejected everything up and until the Oslo Accords.
> 
> Let's the specific Treaty to which you refer.  Which one (or more) are you making reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are acting stupid.
Click to expand...

You continue to spam the thread.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, Let's back-up... Simple question Asked by our friends *Hollie* and *Toastman*...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try reading it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OUTSTANDING QUESTION TO ANSWER)*
> 
> Q:  What new states?  •  *Posting #972*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Using a "TERRITORIAL CLAUSE" and NOT a "NATURALIZATION CLAUSE" → what obligation did the Allied Powers owe the Arabs of Palestine that you claim today?
> 
> Just be straightforward and tell us exactly what obligation or political requirement dictates that the Arabs of Palestine are owed territory and a country?
> 
> What is the official claim by the Arab Palestinians they make that justifies hostilities and violence?
> 
> BE SPECIFIC!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have posted links MANY MANY times showing that ISRAEL has international borders defined by treaties. 
Yet you have not provided one single link to Palestine’s imaginary borders ....
Don’t you get tired of spewing the same made up jibberish, Tinmore ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You did not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by treaties. The land was transferred to Palestine by treaty and the Palestinians became nationals of that territory by international law. Then the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by domestic law.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What Treaty do the Arabs of Palestine have that outlines the boundary of an Arab Palestine?
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have rejected everything up and until the Oslo Accords.
> 
> Let's the specific Treaty to which you refer.  Which one (or more) are you making reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are acting stupid.
Click to expand...

Instead of calling him stupid, why don’t you answer his question ? Unless it is, you can’t provide proof for your claims once again?????


----------



## P F Tinmore

*6th Education Webinar | Gaza: The Soul of Palestine*


----------



## Hollie

*Educational Video | Pally Child Abuse

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*12 Years of Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five; a Webinar hosted by Miko Peled*


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> *Educational Video | Pally Child Abuse
> 
> *



Have you ever heard of Sabeel or a Palestinian Cry for Reconciliation?


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Educational Video | Pally Child Abuse
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of Sabeel or a Palestinian Cry for Reconciliation?
Click to expand...

Is that where the child soldier lives?


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Educational Video | Pally Child Abuse
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of Sabeel or a Palestinian Cry for Reconciliation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that where the child soldier lives?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians have no military. Read Moshe Dayan.






						Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
					

Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online



					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Educational Video | Pally Child Abuse
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of Sabeel or a Palestinian Cry for Reconciliation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that where the child soldier lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have no military. Read Moshe Dayan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
> 
> 
> Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
Click to expand...

Has anyone told Hamas that their Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades doesn’t really exist?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Prospect for Change in Palestine in 2021: A Webinar hosted by Miko Peled*


----------



## Hollie

*Hope and Change in the Pally Territories*

*Palestinian Cleric Speaks Out Against Normalization with Israel: Muslims Must Hate the Jews*
**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*UNBOUGHT POWER HOUR | Season 1 Episode 1 with Noura Erakat*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PALCONV2020: VIRTUAL GALA - Against All Odds: Palestine Prevails*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Khaled Barakat on Palestinian political prisoners with Africa4Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Conversation with Iman Jodeh - Progressive Democrat for Colorado House, District 41*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*These Chains Will Be Broken: Ramzy and Zarefah Baroud on Gaza's History of Resistance*


----------



## P F Tinmore

* Nadia Ben-Youssef:  "A New Day? Organizing to Change US Policy on Israel and Palestine"*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: These two presentations, one on Gaza and one on the West Bank, are common on the level of foreign outreach programs. That is not so unusual to see projecting their voice towards America when trying to reshape opinion. The problem in both presentations is that they attempt to modify and remold the truth in a way that sterilizes the voice into a propaganda tool. They are electronic pep-rallies for the two Arab Palestinian enclaves. Pretending that they are territories that are entirely surrounded by Israel for none other than selfish reasons.



P F Tinmore said:


> *These Chains Will Be Broken: Ramzy and Zarefah Baroud on Gaza's History of Resistance*





P F Tinmore said:


> * Nadia Ben-Youssef:  "A New Day? Organizing to Change US Policy on Israel and Palestine"*


*(COMMENT)*

These two Palestinian host lands, one in the Gaza Strip and one in the West Bank, are two different kinds of political conditions.  

Gaza is not surrounded by Israel.  Has a border in common with Egypt.  And Gaza was not originally under strict border controls in 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from that small land.

◈  The border *security barrier was not constructed by Israel* in 1994. "The Palestinians destroyed large portions of the security barrier during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and began a terrorist campaign. The al-Aqsa (September 2000) was a religiously-motivated outbreak of hostilities over Ariel Sharon's Temple Mount visit.  The barrier was rebuilt between December 2000 and June 2001.​​◈  The *Naval Blockade was not imposed until 2007*. The blockade was employed to reduce the continuous rocket and mortar attacks, when an internationally recognized terrorist group established control over the Gaza Strip, turning security concerns into reality. While Egypt periodically opened its Rafah border crossing, ultimately they ended-up closing it for substantial periods of time security concerns.​​When these little presentations are made, they seldom present the reasoning behind the controls put in place.  It is not just Israel that imposes border controls, two Arab League states (Egypt and Jordan) do so as well.  What that do try to frame is the presentation of International Human Rights Law without the exceptions presented in the law on the grounds of "protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals."  And they certainly do not discuss the prohibition against the propaganda for - or - the incitement or advocacy concerning racial inequality, religious hatred, discrimination, hostility and violence.  These restrictions are found in the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) with is one of the nine* Core International Instruments for Human Rights*.

Another point that these presentations so often skip over is that, in 1967, Israel did NOT cease the Gaza Strip or the West Bank from the Arab Palestinians.  For the two previous decades, these territories were occupied by Arab League states.  And in regards to the West Bank, Jordan abandoned the West Bank by cutting all political ties with it, in 1988, before the Arab Palestinians even had a government.

Just my thoughts,                              





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The problem in both presentations is that they attempt to modify and remold the truth in a way that sterilizes the voice into a propaganda tool.


How so?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,


RoccoR said:


> The problem in both presentations is that they attempt to modify and remold the truth in a way that sterilizes the voice into a propaganda tool.





P F Tinmore said:


> How so?


*(COMMENT)*

◈  Using phrases like "Breaking the Chain."​◈  Pretending that they are in an "Open Air Prison."​◈  Calling their criminals "Freedom Fighters."​◈  Immortalizing kidnappers and murders as legitimate heroes.​◈  Pretending to be victims of Israeli oppression.​
  There are no chains to break.  There are no Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Jerusalem that are the legal property of the Israelis and are in forced labor.  The Arab Palestinians have no relationship to the status of indentured servants to an Israeli landowner; or as slave laborers to Israeli commercial entities.  This is a literary license to use inventive writing to paint an exploitable mental picture for propaganda purposes.

  The Gaza Strip is only enclosed because both Arab neighbors and Israel see them as a threat to peace if they let them run ramped in the region.

  Israel has found it necessary to institute measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the Arab Palestinian offenses when such offenses commission of an act

◈  Which are solely intended to harm the deployed resources to the West Bank responsible for all the measures necessary to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.​◈  Involving the transportation of charges or detonators for explosive or another lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, an Israeli government facility, or a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility.​◈  Necessary to stem the Illicit flows of small arms and light weapons undermine security and the rule of law.​​   It is the position held by many of the various factions that form a choir of Arab quasi-Leadership voices (not a single voice with one policy) that these measures taken to suppress that which:

◈  Disrupt the good order, public action and safety of the territories,​◈  Neutralize such explosives and small arms  that undermine safety and security,​◈  Prevent those that are determined to be a security from entering Israel,​
  The various Arab Palestinian mouthpieces call the necessary measure to suppress terrorists or the enforcement of the Small Arms and Light Weapons Resolutions chains, oppression, and violations of Human Rights. This is a list of examples, of where the various mouthpieces twist the language and make it seem that the Arab Palestinians attempt to modify and remold the truth.

Just my thoughts,                              






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in both presentations is that they attempt to modify and remold the truth in a way that sterilizes the voice into a propaganda tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈  Using phrases like "Breaking the Chain."​◈  Pretending that they are in an "Open Air Prison."​◈  Calling their criminals "Freedom Fighters."​◈  Immortalizing kidnappers and murders as legitimate heroes.​◈  Pretending to be victims of Israeli oppression.​
> There are no chains to break.  There are no Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Jerusalem that are the legal property of the Israelis and are in forced labor.  The Arab Palestinians have no relationship to the status of indentured servants to an Israeli landowner; or as slave laborers to Israeli commercial entities.  This is a literary license to use inventive writing to paint an exploitable mental picture for propaganda purposes.
> 
> The Gaza Strip is only enclosed because both Arab neighbors and Israel see them as a threat to peace if they let them run ramped in the region.
> 
> Israel has found it necessary to institute measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the Arab Palestinian offenses when such offenses commission of an act
> 
> ◈  Which are solely intended to harm the deployed resources to the West Bank responsible for all the measures necessary to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.​◈  Involving the transportation of charges or detonators for explosive or another lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, an Israeli government facility, or a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility.​◈  Necessary to stem the Illicit flows of small arms and light weapons undermine security and the rule of law.​​   It is the position held by many of the various factions that form a choir of Arab quasi-Leadership voices (not a single voice with one policy) that these measures taken to suppress that which:
> 
> ◈  Disrupt the good order, public action and safety of the territories,​◈  Neutralize such explosives and small arms  that undermine safety and security,​◈  Prevent those that are determined to be a security from entering Israel,​
> The various Arab Palestinian mouthpieces call the necessary measure to suppress terrorists or the enforcement of the Small Arms and Light Weapons Resolutions chains, oppression, and violations of Human Rights. This is a list of examples, of where the various mouthpieces twist the language and make it seem that the Arab Palestinians attempt to modify and remold the truth.
> 
> Just my thoughts,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are only familiar with Israel's talking point version of history, I see.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: From Peace Process to Annexation?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Arabic Hour  interviews Amahl Bishara*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in both presentations is that they attempt to modify and remold the truth in a way that sterilizes the voice into a propaganda tool.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

You didn’t understand the description?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Right to Narrate: No Justice Without Palestinian Voices - A People's Policy Roundtable*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PALESTINIAN  STUDENTS  EXCEPTION TO FREE SPEECH*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *PALESTINIAN  STUDENTS  EXCEPTION TO FREE SPEECH*


*
Oh, my. Those poor, excepted dears. Can’t the UN give them more welfare money to remedy their exception’ness?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *PALESTINIAN  STUDENTS  EXCEPTION TO FREE SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh, my. Those poor, excepted dears. Can’t the UN give them more welfare money to remedy their exception’ness?*
Click to expand...

Israel is a loser in the arguments so it tries to shut them down


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *PALESTINIAN  STUDENTS  EXCEPTION TO FREE SPEECH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh, my. Those poor, excepted dears. Can’t the UN give them more welfare money to remedy their exception’ness?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is a loser in the arguments so it tries to shut them down
Click to expand...

What arguments?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## channelbroadcast56

P F Tinmore said:


> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.
> 
> *Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*



Thank you, friend.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*SINGLE DEMOCRATIC STATE IN PALESTINE:EQUALITY FOR ALL*


*SINGLE DEMOCRATIC STATE IN PALESTINE: RIGHT OF RETURN Pt 2*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Pally House of Friendship


----------



## Hollie

Pally law


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *SINGLE DEMOCRATIC STATE IN PALESTINE:EQUALITY FOR ALL*
> 
> 
> *SINGLE DEMOCRATIC STATE IN PALESTINE: RIGHT OF RETURN Pt 2*



That might be a convenient thing to sell to the Left in the West,
but what they mean by that, and want, is the exact opposite.

They say _"democracy"_, but they mean Sharia,
they say_ "equality"_, but they mean Dhimmitude, and no Jews around.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>


Let me get this,

you want to ban Jews from even having license plates,
and accuse them of "segregation" for wanting to drive in places where they do?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Justice for Palestine, Justice for All (Columbia Tuition Strike Teach-In)*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Expulsion without Return? The Palestinian Experience with Ghada Karmi and Ilan Pappé*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinian Refugees Beyond the Trump Era*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism*



*The Misuse of Silly YouTube Videos - Gee-had for Those Who Can’t. *


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Absentees have a home.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Citizen Strangers Minority Rights in the State of Israel

*


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>



YAWN.....,  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” sees nothing wrong with the Jews not having access to E. Jerusalem which includes the  Western Wall
   Tinmore finds this objectionable? Too bad !!!!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Citizen Strangers Minority Rights in the State of Israel*



Pretty darn funny when Arabs-Moslems complain about minority rights. They tend to be among the most flagrant violators of minority rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN.....,  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” sees nothing wrong with the Jews not having access to E. Jerusalem which includes the  Western Wall
> Tinmore finds this objectionable? Too bad !!!!
Click to expand...

Where do you get that shit? Nobody mentioned that.

You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN.....,  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” sees nothing wrong with the Jews not having access to E. Jerusalem which includes the  Western Wall
> Tinmore finds this objectionable? Too bad !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get that shit? Nobody mentioned that.
> 
> You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
Click to expand...


 You are the one who is full of shit  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” believes in the “ 67 Borders” The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall. Are you telling us they haven’t heard this?
  You are the one who needs to stop listening to those voices that don’t exist


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN.....,  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” sees nothing wrong with the Jews not having access to E. Jerusalem which includes the  Western Wall
> Tinmore finds this objectionable? Too bad !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get that shit? Nobody mentioned that.
> 
> You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is full of shit  The “ Jewish Voice for Peace” believes in the “ 67 Borders” The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall. Are you telling us they haven’t heard this?
> You are the one who needs to stop listening to those voices that don’t exist
Click to expand...




ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.


I don't recall ever hearing that.

Link.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.



ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.





P F Tinmore said:


> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.


*(EXAMPLE)*

*Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
  The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.

*Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
  Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
[linked]
​
*(COMMENT)*

I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.

Just My Thought,




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
Click to expand...

It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.

What reporting is dishonest?

link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

Rocco posted an example.

Sorry you missed it.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
Click to expand...

as usual, Tinmore is the liar. I have posted many links where the PLO officially said Jews will not be allowed any access to the Wall
 Pre 67? The Voices in his head keep telling him Israel should accept it. They won’t and never will


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual, Tinmore is the liar. I have posted many links where the PLO officially said Jews will not be allowed any access to the Wall
> Pre 67? The Voices in his head keep telling him Israel should accept it. They won’t and never will
Click to expand...

Poor Tinmore. Frustrated and no response as usual


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
Click to expand...

Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.

The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
Click to expand...

I suppose the Islamic terrorist apologists will try to spin the Abbas comments as separating Israelis from Jews.

Islamo-talking heads are a hoot.

link?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
Click to expand...











						PA officials: Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall
					

Judge Tayseer Al-Tamimi says Al-Aqsa Mosque, including Jewish holy site, is Islamic and belongs to Muslims alone




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




  You are the liar.  What else is new?










						PA tells Palestinians: The Western Wall belongs only to Muslims
					

An official from Fatah called upon Palestinians to defend the site with their lives.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
Click to expand...


I don't see what changed.

And what difference does it make,
when you use the terms interchangeably,
and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.

It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
Click to expand...

It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * I'm not sure of what the Arab Palestinians are saying.

*(COMMENT)*

Arab Palestinians are very ambiguous about their "official" political positions for more than 70 years.  They are just confusing enough that no matter their answer may be on any6 question, their position can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

◈  A classic example is on the matter of "Palestine's Borders."  They insist that Palestine _(as some sort of state or country)_ has established international borders by "treaty."  Yet, the Israeli borders, which actually has treaty defined borders, do not count for some obscure reason.​​◈  Another example of the intentionally confusing language played by the Arab Palestinians is the chicanery between the intent expressed by the Palestinian Authority statement:​​_✦  “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.”_​​_ ✦  PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews._​​_✦  We in the Fatah Movement, regarding the ‎struggle, the resistance, and the rules of engagement – we are open. We are prepared ‎to sacrifice not [just] the last of-. We will sacrifice our children._​
History has demonstrated that the Arab Palestinian will choose "violence" over "peace."  We've seen that when the Arab Palestinians cannot achieve their goals through violence, that only then, will the Arab Palestinian consider "peace" as an option.  In recent months, we've seen the Arab Palestinians condemn the normalization of relations with several Arab Nations, demonstrating once again that the Arab Palestinians are not interested in following the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States.

The Arab Palestinians complain profusely that Israel does not follow International law, yet the Arab Palestinians violate:

_✦  Laws prohibiting the commission of offenses that are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power._​_✦  Laws prohibiting the commission of offenses that are solely intended to seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them._​_✦  Laws prohibiting acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power._​_✦  The unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place._​_✦  Incitement through propaganda for war (NIAC/IAC)._​_✦  The advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence._​_✦  Numerous articles under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)._​
The Arab Palestinians cannot deny International Law, and impose a policy of "by all means necessary" and then turn around and charge Israel using that which the Arab Palestinians blatantly ignore.

The Arab Palestinian people are NOT ones that practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.  As far as the Arab Palestinians are concerned, the primary focus should be "all about them;" and the UN has largely assumed that posture.

Just My Thought,




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...

It has been confirmed many times that Jews are not a community in either of the mini-caliphates of Gaza’istan or Abbas’istan.

Are those mini-caliphates not a part of your imagined “country of Pal’istan” (Where Dreams Come True™).


----------



## toastman

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual, Tinmore is the liar. I have posted many links where the PLO officially said Jews will not be allowed any access to the Wall
> Pre 67? The Voices in his head keep telling him Israel should accept it. They won’t and never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Tinmore. Frustrated and no response as usual
Click to expand...

I’ve been posting here for several years now and I cannot think of one instance where Tinmore actually backed up his claim with a valid link ..or any link at all. Quite pathetic..


----------



## toastman

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

I’ve been asking myself the same question.
Tinmore is so bad at defending Palestinians, that even other Palestinian supporters don’t want him on their side ..


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual, Tinmore is the liar. I have posted many links where the PLO officially said Jews will not be allowed any access to the Wall
> Pre 67? The Voices in his head keep telling him Israel should accept it. They won’t and never will
Click to expand...

First Tinmore posts he never heard that the PLO has declared Jews will not have access to Holy Sites yet when there is documentation he thinks it’s “ funny”
  That what you get from a Pro Palestinian die-hard who has nothing to contribute


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.

But out of curiosity, while we're there,
does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, do you define Pal ''citizenship''? If someone ''lives in Pal'istan'', what does that mean? There are territories occupied / controlled by Hamas and Fatah so which of those territories defines a citizen of ''Pal'istan''?

By way of analogy to a geographic location, is anyone a citizen of the Bible Belt? No.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
Click to expand...

Indeed, a Jew with Pal'istanian citizenship seems problematic.









						For Palestinians, Selling Land to a Jew Is Punishable by Death
					

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas addressing the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. Photo: UN Photo/Cia Pak After the barbaric …




					www.algemeiner.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a Jew with Pal'istanian citizenship seems problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Palestinians, Selling Land to a Jew Is Punishable by Death
> 
> 
> Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas addressing the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. Photo: UN Photo/Cia Pak After the barbaric …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.algemeiner.com
Click to expand...

Another Israeli lie.









						Palestinian Authority: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to the Jews
					

“Those who illegally sell land to Israelis, directly or indirectly, are collaborators and traitors against the religion, the land, the people, and the blood of the Martyrs."




					www.jpost.com
				




Nobody mentioned Jews.

PA laws prohibit Palestinians from selling Palestinian-owned lands to “any man or judicial body of Israeli citizenship” according to laws originally enacted during the Jordanian rule of the West Bank (1948-1967). In 2014, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree amending the land law penal code and increasing punishments for selling land to “hostile countries and their citizens.”​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a Jew with Pal'istanian citizenship seems problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Palestinians, Selling Land to a Jew Is Punishable by Death
> 
> 
> Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas addressing the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. Photo: UN Photo/Cia Pak After the barbaric …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Authority: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to the Jews
> 
> 
> “Those who illegally sell land to Israelis, directly or indirectly, are collaborators and traitors against the religion, the land, the people, and the blood of the Martyrs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody mentioned Jews.
> 
> PA laws prohibit Palestinians from selling Palestinian-owned lands to “any man or judicial body of Israeli citizenship” according to laws originally enacted during the Jordanian rule of the West Bank (1948-1967). In 2014, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree amending the land law penal code and increasing punishments for selling land to “hostile countries and their citizens.”​
Click to expand...

That reads like what you would otherwise define as _Apartheid_™. if the Zionist Entity™ had such a restriction targeting Arabs-Moslems, your dog whistle _Apartheid_™ slogan would be slathered across multiple threads.

Your cut and paste actually confirms my earlier comment about PA policies toward land sales to Jews, Israeli or not.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a Jew with Pal'istanian citizenship seems problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Palestinians, Selling Land to a Jew Is Punishable by Death
> 
> 
> Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas addressing the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. Photo: UN Photo/Cia Pak After the barbaric …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Authority: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to the Jews
> 
> 
> “Those who illegally sell land to Israelis, directly or indirectly, are collaborators and traitors against the religion, the land, the people, and the blood of the Martyrs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody mentioned Jews.
> 
> PA laws prohibit Palestinians from selling Palestinian-owned lands to “any man or judicial body of Israeli citizenship” according to laws originally enacted during the Jordanian rule of the West Bank (1948-1967). In 2014, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree amending the land law penal code and increasing punishments for selling land to “hostile countries and their citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reads like what you would otherwise define as _Apartheid_™. if the Zionist Entity™ had such a restriction targeting Arabs-Moslems, your dog whistle _Apartheid_™ slogan would be slathered across multiple threads.
> 
> Your cut and paste actually confirms my earlier comment about PA policies toward land sales to Jews, Israeli or not.
Click to expand...

Question; Who is a “ Palestinian Jew?” Do any of them live in Gaza? Are they also prohibited from visiting Jewish Holy Sites?


----------



## Hollie

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a Jew with Pal'istanian citizenship seems problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Palestinians, Selling Land to a Jew Is Punishable by Death
> 
> 
> Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas addressing the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. Photo: UN Photo/Cia Pak After the barbaric …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Authority: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to the Jews
> 
> 
> “Those who illegally sell land to Israelis, directly or indirectly, are collaborators and traitors against the religion, the land, the people, and the blood of the Martyrs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody mentioned Jews.
> 
> PA laws prohibit Palestinians from selling Palestinian-owned lands to “any man or judicial body of Israeli citizenship” according to laws originally enacted during the Jordanian rule of the West Bank (1948-1967). In 2014, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree amending the land law penal code and increasing punishments for selling land to “hostile countries and their citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reads like what you would otherwise define as _Apartheid_™. if the Zionist Entity™ had such a restriction targeting Arabs-Moslems, your dog whistle _Apartheid_™ slogan would be slathered across multiple threads.
> 
> Your cut and paste actually confirms my earlier comment about PA policies toward land sales to Jews, Israeli or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question; Who is a “ Palestinian Jew?” Do any of them live in Gaza? Are they also prohibited from visiting Jewish Holy Sites?
Click to expand...

I believe ''Palestinian Jew'' is a reference to a group appearing on the Gaza'istan Endangered Species List. 

All seriousness aside, with the entirety of the Pal Arab worldview focused on Jew hatreds and the daily propaganda campaign of reviling Jews, the notion of ''Pal'istanian Jews'' is a farce.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*DSA, BDS, and Palestine Solidarity: A Panel Discussion*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Discussion on ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Palestinian territories*


----------



## Hollie

*A discussion of the Pally Islamic terrorist mental disorders*


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> *A discussion of the Pally Islamic terrorist mental disorders*


A thumbs up from P F Tinmore on Pally mental disorders.

I guess cheering on the gee-had cult from a distance means that distance provides safety from the affects of that disorder.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*DEBATE: Israel-Palestine w Noam Chomsky & Rudy Rochman | The Great Debate #33*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*ICC Announces It Has Jurisdiction Over Palestinian Territories | The Mehdi Hasan Show*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists. The Shia Iranian Moslems have only the best intentions for the Sunni Arabs-Moslems posing as Pal’istanians.

Don’t be concerned about that 1,400 year old blood feud separating the two larger tribes.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *ICC Announces It Has Jurisdiction Over Palestinian Territories | The Mehdi Hasan Show*


You told us Pal'istan was a state? Who is lying, here?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists. The Shia Iranian Moslems have only the best intentions for the Sunni Arabs-Moslems posing as Pal’istanians.
> 
> Don’t be concerned about that 1,400 year old blood feud separating the two larger tribes.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists.


HUH.  WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists. The Shia Iranian Moslems have only the best intentions for the Sunni Arabs-Moslems posing as Pal’istanians.
> 
> Don’t be concerned about that 1,400 year old blood feud separating the two larger tribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HUH.  WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Raise your hand and ask pertinent questions when you're befuddled.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists. The Shia Iranian Moslems have only the best intentions for the Sunni Arabs-Moslems posing as Pal’istanians.
> 
> Don’t be concerned about that 1,400 year old blood feud separating the two larger tribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HUH.  WTF are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Raise your hand and ask pertinent questions when you're befuddled.
Click to expand...

There is an interview with the Palestinian Prime Minister and you start talking about Iran.

So who is befuddled?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists. The Shia Iranian Moslems have only the best intentions for the Sunni Arabs-Moslems posing as Pal’istanians.
> 
> Don’t be concerned about that 1,400 year old blood feud separating the two larger tribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The Iranian Mullocrats should be the primary representatives and sole moderator for the Pal-Arab terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HUH.  WTF are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Raise your hand and ask pertinent questions when you're befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an interview with the Palestinian Prime Minister and you start talking about Iran.
> 
> So who is befuddled?
Click to expand...

You need to keep up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jerusalem and Palestine: The Inseparables Despite the Odds and Plots, Hatem Bazian*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> *Jerusalem and Palestine: The Inseparables Despite the Odds and Plots, Hatem Bazian*


Since all of you are so obsessed about Israel and Palestine (Tinmore, Jose, Rocco), I don't know why you've never gone to visit this object of your obsession.  (I mean, in the time before the pandemic.)


----------



## José

Hey, FY!!

How nice to see you again!!

You took a long vacation from the Board.

I take 3, 4, 5 month vacations from time to time too.

If I were you I'd leave the Board for good, after all, NY probably has more things for you to do than London, Paris, Madrid and Berlin combined.

I'd better shut my mouth now and stop talking about your personal life before you say I'm creepy   .

I don't want to be creepy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*A Founding Generation of Looters: New Research on Israeli Theft of Palestinian Property in 1948*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *A Founding Generation of Looters: New Research on Israeli Theft of Palestinian Property in 1948*


Pally property?

Another of your silly frauds.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

*BLUF: * I'm not surprised that the Arab Palestinians still dwell on the allegation from seven decades ago; whether it is true (or not) there are still Arab Palestinians with the ability to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.



P F Tinmore said:


> *A Founding Generation of Looters: New Research on Israeli Theft of Palestinian Property in 1948*


*(COMMENT)*

This is an allegation non-capital offense.   The allegations claimed took place over a half-century ago.  The entire approach by this research is addressing the issue as a "theft" or "looting" from a quasi-criminal standpoint.  However, it should be approached from an entirely different perspective.



			
				UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) said:
			
		

> Article  1.
> Statement  of  purpose  of  this  Convention  are:




			
				UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) said:
			
		

> (a)To  promote  and  strengthen  measures  to  prevent  and  combat  corruption  more  efficiently  and  effectively;​(b)To  promote,  facilitate  and  support  international  cooperation  and technical assistance in the prevention of and fight against corruption, including in  asset  recovery;​(c)To promote integrity, accountability, and proper management of public affairs and  public property.​SOURCE:  A/RES/57/169 • 16 January 2003 • High-level political conference for the purpose of signing the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.




My experience (very distant past) as an investigator tells me that sometimes, the criminal approach is not so valid as the civil suit.  (Just my thought.)



Hollie said:


> Pally property?
> Another of your silly frauds.


*(COMMENT)*

While there is a strong case to be made that the Arab Palestinian Return (on proof of true refugee status and property ownership), the Right of Return is NOT absolute.  There are conditions → that represent a direct threat to Israel → and are an "exception" provided by International Covenant, as a necessity to protect national security, public order, public health and morals; including the rights and freedoms of others.  [Article 12(3) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]

I believe that Hollie is correct; the entirety of the research is like studying a dead language if not to practical use.  These scholars and academicians that present just one side of the coin; AND miss the real issue of " asset recovery" or equivalent.

Just My Thought,                              





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jeff Halper - Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine*


----------



## Hollie

Arab Moslem settler colonists


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Boycott, resist, push back: Shifting narratives on Israel in the US *


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> *Boycott, resist, push back: Shifting narratives on Israel in the US *



So Tinmore, what has been the goals of BDS since they started and have they met them ?


----------



## toastman

For you Tinmore:

Since Israel's gross domestic product nearly doubled between 2006 and 2015 and foreign investment in Israel tripled during the same period, BDS has not had a significant impact on Israel's economy









						Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Grégory Chelli (Ulcan) - Wanted in France, Living it up in Israel*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Justice & Peace Series: Strategies to Support the Palestinian Struggle*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.

The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.



_"Their own borders"... _

Really, you lowlife Jihadi brides don't target Americans?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
Click to expand...


*Says the guy with the Swastika on his flag...*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Their own borders"... _
> 
> Really, you lowlife Jihadi brides don't target Americans?
Click to expand...

If you have to go back over 50 years for *one* incident, it doesn't look like a systemic problem. Do you have anything more recent?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Says the guy with the Swastika on his flag...*
Click to expand...

Nice Photoshop!


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Their own borders"... _
> 
> Really, you lowlife Jihadi brides don't target Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have to go back over 50 years for *one* incident, it doesn't look like a systemic problem. Do you have anything more recent?
Click to expand...


Curious, let alone this is your default response to any violence against Jews...
but in all 10 years of your posting here, you always side with Palestinians,
whenever discussing their American victims.

Strange don't you think?

*THE FORGOTTEN AMERICAN VICTIMS OF PALESTINIAN ATTACKS*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * This has been a standing political position for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA had Formally declared many times the Israelis will have no access to the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing that.
> 
> Link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(EXAMPLE)*
> 
> *Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says*
> The Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary), according to an official paper published on Monday by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
> 
> *Palestinian Authority: We Have a Right to Kill Israelis!*
> Hassan abd Rabbo, Spokesman for the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, explains that the Israeli law is an outrage because it infringes on the Palestinians’ natural right to murder Jews. Payments to the families of terrorists, he says, will never stop. Paying terrorists and the families of terrorists is a “sacred national obligation of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership.” This looks like a situation that is ripe for compromise.
> [linked]
> View attachment 451035​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you are being honest with yourself or the members of the discussion group.  Arab Palestinian clerics and Palestinian Authority (Fatah) personalities have repeatedly commented -- in Arabic -- claims that Jews have no historical ties to the Land of Israel or Jewish holy sites.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say much about Israeli propaganda. The reporting is too dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s very convenient to make a statement such as the above while unable to support that comment.
> 
> What reporting is dishonest?
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco posted an example.
> 
> Sorry you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual swing and miss. Why post false claims when you're repeatedly called out for doing so?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example that Rocco posted, and you missed, is that Abbas said no Israelis in Palestine.
> 
> The lying propagandists changed Israelis to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what changed.
> 
> And what difference does it make,
> when you use the terms interchangeably,
> and define "Palestinian" as anyone but Jews.
> 
> It only confirms that this is exactly your goal,
> and you're only arguing semantics, knowing the result is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been stated many times that Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you people many times feel a natural urge to 'state your allowance',
> to Palestinian Jews or elsewhere, that you simply cannot come to terms
> with independent Jews, while making the best case for Israel.
> 
> But out of curiosity, while we're there,
> does your definition of_ 'Palestinian Jews'_
> not in anyway meant to exclude 99.9% of Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get that. Jews with Palestinian citizenship can live in Palestine. Those who don't will be foreigners. Just like every place else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Says the guy with the Swastika on his flag...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice Photoshop!
Click to expand...


See you can't even remotely dare address the issue...
yet try to sell me on "citizenship" in your wanna be Caliphate.

Drop the pretense.

*Swastika Flag Seen Hoisted Above Palestinian Town (VIDEO)*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF:  A matter of perception...



Hollie said:


>





P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.


*(COMMENT)*

Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?

When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?

When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?  

When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.


*(COMMENT)

IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.

_(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_

*IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.

In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:


			
				JNS New Syndicate said:
			
		

> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog.
> *SOURCE*: * Veneration Video*




			
				Daily Mail News said:
			
		

> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*


* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> (Palestine borders are questionable.


Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. They remain unchanged.


RoccoR said:


> _By no means are they a sovereign power. The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_


The people inside a defined territory have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are products of sovereignty not prerequisites.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.


The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.

There is nothing "local" about Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
Click to expand...


Oh really?

Sorry to burst your bubble,
but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...






And if already discussing -

then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF:  A 


P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. They remain unchanged.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, This is just too much.  You've been given the treaties that cover the overall territory.  As far as Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem are concerned, the current treaty boundaries are *defined by Posting #3518*.



RoccoR said:


> _By no means are they a sovereign power. The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_





P F Tinmore said:


> The people inside a defined territory have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are products of sovereignty not prerequisites.


*(COMMENT)*

You get "Half Credit."

The Arab Palestinians do not have a single voice with an agreed-upon definition of the territory.   The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have a State.  In 1988, when the PLO declared independence - Israel already had control of the territories.

The "prerequisites" under international convention cites a state should possess the following qualifications:
​
a.a permanent population;​b.a defined territory;​c.government; and​d.capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
Click to expand...

Jews were not ''local'' to the area of Palestine? 

Your madrassah has played a cruel joke on you.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
Click to expand...


Wow. An echo chamber for Pally falsehoods. 

You don't identify what borders are associated with the Pally terrorist syndicates so your comment rings hollow. Where are the borders that delineate the Islamic terrorist franchises occupying Gaza and the West Bank?

Secondly, to claim that pally terrorists don't target Americans displays ignorance on your part, because your Islamic terrorist heroes actually do target Americans.





__





						American Victims of Terrorist Attacks
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. They remain unchanged.



Your silly ''Treaty of Lausanne'' nonsense has been debunked dozens of times. 

You never did supply the names of the ''new states'' you claimed existed. What are those ''new states''?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble,
> but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if already discussing -
> 
> then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
> if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?
Click to expand...

So, Palestine was named in Hebrew?

Interesting.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The "prerequisites" under international convention cites a state should possess the following qualifications:
> a.a permanent population;
> b.a defined territory;
> c.government;
> d.capacity to enter into relations with the other states.


a. Palestine's permanent population dated back hundreds even thousands of years.
a. Israel's permanent population was recent colonial settlers.

b. Palestine's territory was defined by post war treaties.
b. Israel still has no defined territory.

c. Palestine had a temporarily appointed government that (supposedly) was to work in the best interest of the people.
c. Israel's government was imposed at the point of a gun against the wishes of the majority of the people.

d. Palestine enter several international treaties and even had a trade agreement with the US in 1932.
d. Israel - yes.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble,
> but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if already discussing -
> 
> then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
> if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Palestine was named in Hebrew?
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you can’t name those “new statescreated by the Treaty of Lausanne.

That seems strange indeed as you continue to press the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne did indeed create “new states”.

You are indeed aware that your “new states” claim is a fraud so what does that say about your continued beating of that dead horse?


----------



## Hollie

Indeed, interesting. Arab-Moslem “Pal’istanians” existe


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "prerequisites" under international convention cites a state should possess the following qualifications:
> a.a permanent population;
> b.a defined territory;
> c.government;
> d.capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> 
> 
> a. Palestine's permanent population dated back hundreds even thousands of years.
> a. Israel's permanent population was recent colonial settlers.
> 
> b. Palestine's territory was defined by post war treaties.
> b. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> c. Palestine had a temporarily appointed government that (supposedly) was to work in the best interest of the people.
> c. Israel's government was imposed at the point of a gun against the wishes of the majority of the people.
> 
> d. Palestine enter several international treaties and even had a trade agreement with the US in 1932.
> d. Israel - yes.
Click to expand...


Indeed, interesting. Arab-Moslem “Pal’istanians” existed before the Invention of Islam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble,
> but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if already discussing -
> 
> then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
> if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Palestine was named in Hebrew?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, you can’t name those “new statescreated by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> That seems strange indeed as you continue to press the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne did indeed create “new states”.
> 
> You are indeed aware that your “new states” claim is a fraud so what does that say about your continued beating of that dead horse?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> That seems strange indeed as you continue to press the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne did indeed create “new states”.


I never said that.

You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.


----------



## Lastamender

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "prerequisites" under international convention cites a state should possess the following qualifications:
> a.a permanent population;
> b.a defined territory;
> c.government;
> d.capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> 
> 
> a. Palestine's permanent population dated back hundreds even thousands of years.
> a. Israel's permanent population was recent colonial settlers.
> 
> b. Palestine's territory was defined by post war treaties.
> b. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> c. Palestine had a temporarily appointed government that (supposedly) was to work in the best interest of the people.
> c. Israel's government was imposed at the point of a gun against the wishes of the majority of the people.
> 
> d. Palestine enter several international treaties and even had a trade agreement with the US in 1932.
> d. Israel - yes.
Click to expand...

When was Palestine founded? What was the Palestinian currency called? Who was their first leader?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble,
> but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if already discussing -
> 
> then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
> if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Palestine was named in Hebrew?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, you can’t name those “new statescreated by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> That seems strange indeed as you continue to press the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne did indeed create “new states”.
> 
> You are indeed aware that your “new states” claim is a fraud so what does that say about your continued beating of that dead horse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems strange indeed as you continue to press the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne did indeed create “new states”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
Click to expand...

Are you confused about what you wrote?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns*


----------



## Lastamender

P F Tinmore said:


> *How do we speak to Christians today about Palestine Israel with Dr  Clint Le Bruyns*


Palestinians are terrorists.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: I simply don't know where you get this belief from. But NO post-War Treaty on the 20th or 21st Century defines Palestine as a sovereign nation. It does define Palestine as a territory subject to a Mandate. It was considered not capable of standing on its own.



P F Tinmore said:


> a. Palestine's permanent population dated back hundreds even thousands of years.
> a. Israel's permanent population was recent colonial settlers.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.

After the termination of the Mandate, Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) continue to be a legal entity.  Why?  (RHETORICAL) It will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.




P F Tinmore said:


> b. Palestine's territory was defined by post war treaties.
> b. Israel still has no defined territory.


*(COMMENT)*

NO!  Nothing of the sort.  After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.  It will not be until November 1988 before the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) became the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine.   This became a paradox because there was no territory liberated and earmarked for the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip.  ALL the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was controlled by a party to the conflict.




P F Tinmore said:


> c. Palestine had a temporarily appointed government that (supposedly) was to work in the best interest of the people.
> c. Israel's government was imposed at the point of a gun against the wishes of the majority of the people.


*(COMMENT)*

The reality is what it is.  BUT, NO "binding" promise or obligation was made to the Arab Palestinian.  All the agreements pertaining to the territory were between parties to the conflict - and NOT the Arab Palestinians [former elements considered to be Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) protected persons].



P F Tinmore said:


> d. Palestine enter several international treaties and even had a trade agreement with the US in 1932.
> d. Israel - yes.



*(COMMENT)*

Again, half-Credit...  You comment should read:  The Government of Palestinian (British Administration) made agreements.  NOT Palestine governed by Arab Palestinians.  From 1922 to the end of the Mandate in 1948, the British High Commissioner had governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​I give you a solid "C-" for effort only.  Your accuracy was totally inadequate.  The Mandatory had been entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> NO! Nothing of the sort. After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.


The Mandates had no territory. Whether the Mandate was there or not has no bearing on territory. So whose territory do you believe it was during thr Mandate period?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Nothing of the sort. After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates had no territory. Whether the Mandate was there or not has no bearing on territory. So whose territory do you believe it was during thr Mandate period?
Click to expand...

That comment has been addressed more times than I can recall. 

How is it possible you still don't understand?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Nothing of the sort. After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates had no territory. Whether the Mandate was there or not has no bearing on territory. So whose territory do you believe it was during thr Mandate period?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment has been addressed more times than I can recall.
> 
> How is it possible you still don't understand?
Click to expand...

Dancing is not a refute.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.


Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Nothing of the sort. After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates had no territory. Whether the Mandate was there or not has no bearing on territory. So whose territory do you believe it was during thr Mandate period?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment has been addressed more times than I can recall.
> 
> How is it possible you still don't understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dancing is not a refute.
Click to expand...

I never used the term refute. You seem befuddled to learn that your comment has been addressed more times than I can remember. I sense that you confuse answers you have been given with comments you later make that are not associated with those answers. 

Is that why you repeatedly make the same comment even though it has been addressed many times?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
Click to expand...

New states?

You still can't identify those ''new states''.

Why make the same nonsense claim?

You're dancing.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: You are really getting entangled in the terminology.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Nothing of the sort. After the Termination of the Mandate, what territory was not held by the State of Israel, was held by components of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates had no territory. Whether the Mandate was there or not has no bearing on territory. So whose territory do you believe it was during thr Mandate period?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You drone on and on about the fact that "the Mandates had no territory."  Everybody get that.  No I want to make this absolutely clear.  The Rights and title to the territory were renounced and taken by the Allied Powers.  The territory was in the hands of the Allied Powers.  THE ARAB PALESTINIAN HAD NO TERRITORY.  So you can step down off that horse and get back on the topic and its realities.  Everyone understands your little nuance.


			
				Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> SOURCE:  *The Palestine Order in Council*




			
				MANDATE FOR PALESTINE said:
			
		

> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
> SOURCE:  *MANDATE FOR PALESTINE*


 
One further point:  When the Mandatory Power invited the Arab Palestinian to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions, there was a resounding "NO" for the Arab Palestinians.  So, the Arab Palestinians shot themselves in the foot.* 




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
Click to expand...

So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?

Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF:  While the French Mandate already had states outline, the British Mandate did not.



RoccoR said:


> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.





P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, with Article 30 and Nationality.

Article 30 has nothing to do with the distribution of territory.  Nothing at all.   The Article says that however, the Allied Powers apportion the land, those people living in those apportions will assume that nationality.

You keep bringing this up, knowing that your interpretation of what it says is wrong.  Article 16 Territorial is the driving force _(the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned)_.  The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the treaty.


*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> After the termination of the Mandate, Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) continue to be a legal entity. Why? (RHETORICAL) It will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.


When the Mandate left the UN ducked out. What then would be Palestine's status? Does that mean that Palestine was up for grabs?

Links please.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
Click to expand...

Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _(the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned)_.


The parties concerned were not defined. So who were the parties concerned? The Allied parties who claimed no sovereignty, or the residents who had citizenship in the territory?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...

Links for what?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links for what?
Click to expand...

So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The IHRA Definition & the Fight Against Antisemitism: Opportunities & Struggles for Progressive Jews*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
Click to expand...

Is that correct?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything that says that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Is that the realization you can't come to grips with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.. the territories were transferred to Israel as a ''new state''?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't seen anything that says that.
Click to expand...

You wrote in post 1141: “The territories were transferred to the new states”.

What “new states”?

Note: this is where you disappear for several pages because your nonsense claim is indefensible.

So, then, we can agree that the “new states” created by the Treaty of Lausanne included the State of Israel?

Note: your Islamo-dancing shoes are over there  ——>


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
Click to expand...

What “new states”?

Why do you duck, dodge, dance then disappear whenever you’re tasked with supporting your Treaty of Lausanne conspiracy theory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What “new states”?
> 
> Why do you duck, dodge, dance then disappear whenever you’re tasked with supporting your Treaty of Lausanne conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

Why do you post here when you know so little? The creation of the current Middle East and you are clueless. You believe that I don't know anything yet you come to me for information.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What “new states”?
> 
> Why do you duck, dodge, dance then disappear whenever you’re tasked with supporting your Treaty of Lausanne conspiracy theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little? The creation of the current Middle East and you are clueless. You believe that I don't know anything yet you come to me for information.
Click to expand...


So you can't answer his question,
and instead bang about how much you know?

Boy...anti-Israel activists are so DESPERATELY stupid...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Threat
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  A matter of perception...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are → what you call symptoms - really the disease?  I think you might have it backward.
> 
> When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HAMAS) condemns Israel's participation in a security conference in Bahrain, is that really a symptom or is that the disease that causes the war to continue?
> 
> When Fatah says:  "Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis," is that not the symptom that causes the conflict to expand?
> 
> When PA officials say:  "Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall."  Is that not a deliberate and inflammatory remark?
> 
> When Palestinian Arab Official Admits that “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate,” is that not the incitement factor for hostile action?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* the Arab Palestinians *THEN* they are aggressively conduction operations against foreign sovereignty.
> 
> _(Palestine borders are questionable.  By no means are they a sovereign power.   The question of whether or not they are a stand-alone government is up for debate.)_
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.  You cannot have it both ways. Either Israel is sovereign and its forces are not a foreign occupation, - or - Israel is sovereign and Hostile Arab Palestinian operations against Israel is an act of aggression.
> 
> In March 1978, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Jihadist (Fatah faction) Dalal Mughrabi killed the niece of   Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Connecticut).  And later on the same terrorist operation, they stopped and killed 24 adults and 12 children on the Coast Road bus.  I mention is particular incident because JUST TODAY - the Hostile Arab Palestinians:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> JNS New Syndicate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (June 15, 2020 / JNS) A music video aired on official Palestinian Authority television in June included images of terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who together with others *murdered 37 Israelis, among them 12 children*, in 1978, according to an Israel-based media watchdog. ​
> *SOURCE*: *Veneration Video*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mail on Sunday investigation has *found 24 schools named after Palestinian terrorists* and evidence of widespread encouragement of violence against Israel by teachers, with terrorists routinely held up as heroes for schoolchildren.​
> Pictures of ‘martyrs’ are posted on school walls, revolutionary slogans and symbols are painted on premises used by youngsters, sports events are named after teenage terrorists and children are encouraged to act out shooting Israeli soldiers in plays.​
> SOURCE:  *Daily Mail*​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* they claim that Israel is inside Palestine, *THEN* Palestine is in a state of a "Civil War" and not a foreign occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of Israel was foreign. The founders were foreign. The population was foreign. Its financing was foreign. Its political cover was foreign.
> 
> There is nothing "local" about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble,
> but was it _foreign _you were sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if already discussing -
> 
> then what is _"local"_ about Palestine,
> if Israelis and Palestinians came from the same countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Palestine was named in Hebrew?
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...


Palestinian - simply means _'invader'_ in the local languages,
to which Arabic, by the way, is foreign.

Indeed interesting, don't you think,
that those who make most noise calling everyone else _foreigners_,
themselves demand to be called exactly by that name in the local language?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the territory to which we are referring, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied, was sovereign to the Ottoman Empire for nearly 800 years before the Ottoman/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What “new states”?
> 
> Why do you duck, dodge, dance then disappear whenever you’re tasked with supporting your Treaty of Lausanne conspiracy theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little? The creation of the current Middle East and you are clueless. You believe that I don't know anything yet you come to me for information.
Click to expand...

I’m coming to you for information, yes. I’m coming to you for information about some unidentified “new states” you carry on about, (knowing no “new states” were created by the Treaty of Lausanne), which is why you cannot name, identify or locate those “new states”.

link?

Indeed, what “new states”? Link?

Indeed, have you forgotten that you wrote in post 1141, link?

“The territories were transferred to the new states.”

Indeed?

Indeed, what “new states”? Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the termination of the Mandate, Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) continue to be a legal entity. Why? (RHETORICAL) It will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left the UN ducked out. What then would be Palestine's status? Does that mean that Palestine was up for grabs?
> 
> Links please.
Click to expand...

I see part of the problem you’re having, “The Mandate” was not a physical entity as you seem to imagine it. It was an administrative order. You can find the details here: The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

What was “Palestine’s” status before the Turks released all rights and title? Well, there was no “Palestine” under the Ottoman Empire. I would suggest you look at YouTube videos for a comprehensive description.

Anything on those “new states” conspiracy theory?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

BLUF:  We've discussed this many times as well.  UN Charter • Chapter XII • Article 77 (1a)

The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:​ * a.* territories now held under mandate;

→  P F Tinmore, There is your answer, and here is your link. You can Stp here. I don't want to confuse you.
​₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​→  FOR: *et al,*
*(COMMENT)*​​The Mandatory did not just duck-out.  The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.  The UK was trying to recover from a devastating war and the Arab Palestinians became an Albatros around the neck of the British people.  The British came to the conclusion that they did not need the additional burden of the Mandate Palestine and the Arab Palestinians no longer deserved their protection or support.  It was determined that the funds to help Mandate Palestine would be better served rebuilding England.  "In fact rationing did not end completely until *1954*, nearly a decade after the end of the war, and the UK was the last country to end rationing."​​The Arab League was quite lucky from the standpoint.  The Allied Powers of the world were tired.  It had just finished WWII _(for which the Arab Palestinians contributed notion to the war effort)_ and were not eager to fight another war in the Middle East _(politically it would be a hard sell)_.  Instead, they opted to go through the Cease Fire/Armistice options.  Many felt an Arab is an Arab _(all the same)._  Since the Arab League failed to achieve their hidden agenda and the State of Israel was still intact _(larger if you count the territory under their effective control)_, a working Armistice was a much more viable political option.​​_*{Plots within Plots}*_​​While the Arab Palestinians might have thought that the Arab League was involved for some benevolent reason → like to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres →  the story told by King Abdullah was just a bit of deception and cover for the political concealment of the true agenda.



​The practical outcome was that Egypt secured the Gaza Strip for themselves and Jordan secured the West Bank and Jerusalem for themselves.  The Arab Palestinians were disarmed and got nothing.  It was taken by the Arab League.  While Egypt's plan to raise a puppet regime ultimately failed _(the bogus All Palestine Government)_, Jordan's plan to assimilate the West Bank and Jerusalem became a reality.  King Abdullah wanted to imitate his father _(The Sharif of Mecca)_ by becoming the Lord Protector of Jerusalem.  King Abdullah was thinking of the Prestige that would bring to his family.  ​

			
				Islamic Information Portal said:
			
		

> *Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II have signed an agreement* to _“defend Jerusalem and its holy sites,”_ the Ma’an news agency reported on Sunday afternoon.   The agreement, he said, *confirmed both Jordan’s role as protector of the city’s holy sites and *_*“Palestinian sovereignty over all of Palestine, including its capital East Jerusalem.*”_  A statement from Jordan’s royal palace confirmed that Abbas has committed to a special Jordanian role in caring for holy shrines in Jerusalem.  *The move is symbolic — Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel recognizes Jordan’s role as custodian of Christian and Muslim shrines in the city, *which Israel captured from the kingdom in the Six-Day War.  *The Palestinians still have no official say on Jerusalem.* The fate of the city and its shrines is to be determined in final status talks with Israel, which broke down two years ago. The statement said the agreement signed Sunday between Abbas and Abdullah confirms a verbal deal brokered in 1924.





			
				Islamic Information Portal said:
			
		

> *SOURCE*:  *Abbas and Abdullah sign Jerusalem protection pact* • _By Yifa Yaakov and AP / 2 Apr 2013 • Republished _Monday 15 February 2021 \ 03 Rajab 1442 H​​


​

But in the end, by 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem for the same reason the British left Mandate Palestine. The Arab Palestinians were simply was not worth the expense and effort.   In the back of their mind was still the memory of Black September and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) attempt on the Kingdom.  Even today, the set of International Donors are gradually dwindling away.  For the last 20 years, the Arab Palestinians, → even with the massive infusion of donor dollars, the Arab Palestinians have made no tangible headway towards peace, stabilization, and infrastructure development.  If anything, they have reiterated the Arab Palestinian mantra from 1948:    Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  It is as clear today as it has been for the last half-century.  And that is why they will (ultimately) fail.​​*



*​Most Respectfully,​R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.


Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.
Click to expand...

What did I say that was incorrect?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,



RoccoR said:


> The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.





P F Tinmore said:


> Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.


*(COMMENT)*

Once the UN was activated, the Mandatory was answerable to the UN International Trusteeship System.  The UN Activated in 1945.  That would be three years before the termination.  At the time f the termination, the UN was already the driving political body.  And the principal nations behind were the five permanent members of the Security Council, all of whom were the Principle Allied Powers who had fought the war.

One of the key features that were desire:


			
				Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant said:
			
		

> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> SOURCE: League of Nations Covenant


Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The Arab Palestinians made it clear that they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis as the Jewish Agency.

On a similar note, the UN Palestine Commission sent an invitation to the Arab Higher Committee in January 1948 to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.  The response was as expected.

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION
 AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING 
DERIVING THEREFROM.  FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​
It is NOT the fault of the British Administration that the Arab Palestinians intentionally failed to cooperate in the tutelage or participation in self-government.  I realize that it is not an uncommon response for the pro-Palestinian camp to play the part of the victim.  But clearly, on this matter, it is simply NOT THE CASE.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I say that was incorrect?
Click to expand...

Most everything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.


What were the terms of that attempt?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.
> 
> 
> 
> What were the terms of that attempt?
Click to expand...

Anything on those “new states”?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, a whole room of people pounding on the symptoms and not one looking at the problems.
> 
> The Palestinians do not opperate outside their own borders and they do not target Americans.
Click to expand...

You mean those fake borders that you made up ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Hunger for Justice Ep. 5: The Power of Seed in Occupied Land - Vivien Sansour w/ Dan Saladino*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Can the book salesman tell us anything those “new states”?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Conversation with Larissa Sansour | Arab Film Fest Collab 2020*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Salma Karmi-Ayyoub Highlights: From Balfour to Boris Johnson Event*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PALCONV2020: Black and Palestinian Liberation: Struggling Hand in Hand*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Labor Day, Annexation & Biden? With Phyllis Bennis and Diana Buttu*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy on Israeli Settlements, Kerry, Military Aid & End of Two-State Solution*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Incitement of America against Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: This is a bit of a mixed bag of political snippets. The purpose of such productions is to infect the American public against Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy on Israeli Settlements, Kerry, Military Aid & End of Two-State Solution*


*(COMMENT)*

The Israeli effective control over the West Bank is actually an outcome of Arab Palestinian Hostility.  Had the Arab Palestinians adopted a peaceful posture and political stability in the days following the Oslo Accords _(the mid-1990s)_, the Israelis would have seen no reason to continue Civil Administration over the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Since that time, the Israelis, at some risk to their security, unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.  The political experience was to see if, given autonomy _(versus a security crack-down)_, would the Arab Palestinians actually assume a peaceful posture.  Well, the answer is _(a resounding_) NO_*! *_ If anything, giving the Arab Palestinians autonomy actually sets the condition for greater violence_ (not a peaceful improvement)_.  Under what political evidence, do we see where an Israeli relinquishment of control over the West Bank would result in an improvement???  There is none.  No evidence at all.  What did we see unfold in the aftermath of the withdrawal _(unilateral disengagement) _from the Gaza Strip → is the exact opposite. As the Brooking Institute once said: "Gaza Withdrawal’s Aftermath is Key." If the Israels unilaterally withdraw from Area "C" - what will be the outcome. The void will be filled with every kind of Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters from all over the immediate region.  And there is the key.  If the Israelis release their grip on the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, there is no reasonable expectation that it will add to the peaceful development in the territory.  Rather, it will more than likely, turn out to be a larger mirror image of the Gaza Strip.

Then, what happens?  _(*The Pinocchio Test)*_

No country is going to underwrite the outcome if the Israelis just jump up and withdraw from the territories.  There will be no guarantor for peace.  Because, while politically everyone would like to encourage Arab Palestinian autonomy, in reality, no one _(the US, not the quartet, the EU, not the Arab League, not NATO, etc)_ is going to act as the insurer for peace _(because no one has that kind of faith in the Arab Palestinians)_.  Israel would begin the planning and execution of a withdrawal tomorrow if (and only if) the major players _(the US, not the quartet, the EU, not the Arab League, not NATO, etc)_ would act as the guarantors smite the Arab Palestinians, and strike with a firm blow against the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters should the West Bank begin a new campaign against Israel. But again, none of the political players have that kind of faith in the Arab Palestinians. And Israel does have that kind of faith in the major players involved in the peace process.

What might work better is → if the donor community help for the withdrawal of the Israeli settlers _(rather than throw away their funding on the Arab Palestinians)_ → to relocate them into a new area of 100,000 family dwellings in the irrigated Negev plot → complete with a total utility infrastructure AND pay for the reactivation of the Spetsnaz with a complement of GRU/GU to act as the security surveillance and maintenance for peace.

At first, this may sound ultra-expensive _(and maybe a bit draconian)_.  But we must remember, the international community has been donating funds in all sorts of ways to the Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict Resolution effort for more than half a century, with no appreciable success.  If we shift the paradigm and do something totally different, the impact and outcome might be just as different.  

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: * Even if you do not agree, this is a presentation by Professor Wadie Said worth the time to listen.  (Good investment.)

*BLUF*: "Terrorism Exceptionalism" → Remember that Professor Wadie Said is a criminal defense attorney and NOT a prosecutor. When they engage in legal critical thinking, they do it from the standpoint of protecting the defendant and NOT protecting the victims of crime or the national effort to maintain law and order - or - that of national security. 



P F Tinmore said:


> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*


*(CLEAR POINT)*

Prof Said mentioned that he thought there we about 60 Activities on the* US DoS Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) List*.  This presentation by Professor Said was recorded in 2015.  The FTO list is now about 70 entities long today.  And a fair portion of them has some connection with "Islamic Radicalism."  _(In what Professor Said calls scare quotes.) _ For instance, the very first group on the FTO list is Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) which was designated in 1997 _(more than 2 decades ago)_.  The ASG _(as it was known in my day)_ has since evolved into "Islamic State – East Asia," which modern-day Counter-Terrorism and Counterintelligence professionals know it as. I'm quite sure that almost everyone in this discussion group has some knowledge of the "Islamic State." More than half of the FTOs have some deep-rooted connection with various Islamic Movements or Muslim Religious followings.

*(COMMENT)*

Professor Said is complaining about "*Material Support*" _(including support in the* form of speech* and the *enhancement of legitimacy*)_.  And in the end, Professor Said makes a very few, but an interesting number of cases, that use anonymous witness.  But then, the professor waffles on the issue.

The Professor made a comment about the implementation of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).

*




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*


How is this relevant to Pally terrorism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this relevant to Pally terrorism?
Click to expand...

What  Pally terrorism?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this relevant to Pally terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What  Pally terrorism?
Click to expand...

The Pally terrorism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Inventing terrorists.*

*A Conversation with Dr. Sami Al-Arian and U.S. Attorneys on the Use of Secret Evidence*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: * Even if you do not agree, this is a presentation by Professor Wadie Said worth the time to listen.  (Good investment.)
> 
> *BLUF*: "Terrorism Exceptionalism" → Remember that Professor Wadie Said is a criminal defense attorney and NOT a prosecutor. When they engage in legal critical thinking, they do it from the standpoint of protecting the defendant and NOT protecting the victims of crime or the national effort to maintain law and order - or - that of national security.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*
> 
> 
> 
> *(CLEAR POINT)*
> 
> Prof Said mentioned that he thought there we about 60 Activities on the* US DoS Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) List*.  This presentation by Professor Said was recorded in 2015.  The FTO list is now about 70 entities long today.  And a fair portion of them has some connection with "Islamic Radicalism."  _(In what Professor Said calls scare quotes.) _ For instance, the very first group on the FTO list is Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) which was designated in 1997 _(more than 2 decades ago)_.  The ASG _(as it was known in my day)_ has since evolved into "Islamic State – East Asia," which modern-day Counter-Terrorism and Counterintelligence professionals know it as. I'm quite sure that almost everyone in this discussion group has some knowledge of the "Islamic State." More than half of the FTOs have some deep-rooted connection with various Islamic Movements or Muslim Religious followings.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Professor Said is complaining about "*Material Support*" _(including support in the* form of speech* and the *enhancement of legitimacy*)_.  And in the end, Professor Said makes a very few, but an interesting number of cases, that use anonymous witness.  But then, the professor waffles on the issue.
> 
> The Professor made a comment about the implementation of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Calling people terrorists cancel their rights.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: * Even if you do not agree, this is a presentation by Professor Wadie Said worth the time to listen.  (Good investment.)
> 
> *BLUF*: "Terrorism Exceptionalism" → Remember that Professor Wadie Said is a criminal defense attorney and NOT a prosecutor. When they engage in legal critical thinking, they do it from the standpoint of protecting the defendant and NOT protecting the victims of crime or the national effort to maintain law and order - or - that of national security.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Terrorism Label: an Examination of American Criminal Prosecutions"*
> 
> 
> 
> *(CLEAR POINT)*
> 
> Prof Said mentioned that he thought there we about 60 Activities on the* US DoS Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) List*.  This presentation by Professor Said was recorded in 2015.  The FTO list is now about 70 entities long today.  And a fair portion of them has some connection with "Islamic Radicalism."  _(In what Professor Said calls scare quotes.) _ For instance, the very first group on the FTO list is Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) which was designated in 1997 _(more than 2 decades ago)_.  The ASG _(as it was known in my day)_ has since evolved into "Islamic State – East Asia," which modern-day Counter-Terrorism and Counterintelligence professionals know it as. I'm quite sure that almost everyone in this discussion group has some knowledge of the "Islamic State." More than half of the FTOs have some deep-rooted connection with various Islamic Movements or Muslim Religious followings.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Professor Said is complaining about "*Material Support*" _(including support in the* form of speech* and the *enhancement of legitimacy*)_.  And in the end, Professor Said makes a very few, but an interesting number of cases, that use anonymous witness.  But then, the professor waffles on the issue.
> 
> The Professor made a comment about the implementation of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling people terrorists cancel their rights.
Click to expand...

Islamic terrorism isn't a right.


----------



## Hollie

PA PM Shtayyeh whitewashes terror; against ICC trying Hamas for its crimes: “Palestinians were never on the attack, always on the defense”


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) 
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*: "If it walks - like a duck..."



P F Tinmore said:


> Calling people terrorists cancel their rights.





			
				Posting 18656 said:
			
		

> *Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*
> ◈. By membership in a defined terrorist organization!​◈. By the activities engages in.​◈. By the criminal intent.​


*(COMMENT)*

A terrorist by who they are, what they do, and why they do it.  We can call them by any name you want to use, by everyone owning a duty to protect their people from the armed struggle and intimidation of the HoAP will know the Arab Palestinian as a terrorist.  It does not matter how they mask it.  It does not matter how they cover the smell.  I does not matter what cover and concealment they use to hide.
Every time you attempt to plead the case of those that participate in, provide material support to, donate financial aid for operations that are intended to further activities that harm civilians, or harm the civilian and military administration of the Occupation Forces, or commit crimes against the citizenry of the sovereign power of Israel, YOU TOO become an accomplice to:




SOURCE:  *Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)*​
If you want to call it "Playtime in the Sandbox," then so be it.  It does NOT change the fact that most of the voters in 2006 voted for either HAMAS or Fatah.  And in doing so they committed acts that express Article I criteria.

If you want to call them sandbox players, then so be it:  It does not change the actions described in which the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.  Each time the HoAP takes action against the forces implementing security measures required by the Hague Convention (1907) or the acts punishable by the authority of the Geneva Convention, the HoAP only prove themselves to be a population governed by criminal behaviors.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Sham political trial.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: "If it walks - like a duck..."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people terrorists cancel their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting 18656 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*
> ◈. By membership in a defined terrorist organization!​◈. By the activities engages in.​◈. By the criminal intent.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A terrorist by who they are, what they do, and why they do it.  We can call them by any name you want to use, by everyone owning a duty to protect their people from the armed struggle and intimidation of the HoAP will know the Arab Palestinian as a terrorist.  It does not matter how they mask it.  It does not matter how they cover the smell.  I does not matter what cover and concealment they use to hide.
> Every time you attempt to plead the case of those that participate in, provide material support to, donate financial aid for operations that are intended to further activities that harm civilians, or harm the civilian and military administration of the Occupation Forces, or commit crimes against the citizenry of the sovereign power of Israel, YOU TOO become an accomplice to:
> 
> View attachment 459785
> SOURCE:  *Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)*​
> If you want to call it "Playtime in the Sandbox," then so be it.  It does NOT change the fact that most of the voters in 2006 voted for either HAMAS or Fatah.  And in doing so they committed acts that express Article I criteria.
> 
> If you want to call them sandbox players, then so be it:  It does not change the actions described in which the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.  Each time the HoAP takes action against the forces implementing security measures required by the Hague Convention (1907) or the acts punishable by the authority of the Geneva Convention, the HoAP only prove themselves to be a population governed by criminal behaviors.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: "If it walks - like a duck..."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people terrorists cancel their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting 18656 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*
> ◈. By membership in a defined terrorist organization!​◈. By the activities engages in.​◈. By the criminal intent.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A terrorist by who they are, what they do, and why they do it.  We can call them by any name you want to use, by everyone owning a duty to protect their people from the armed struggle and intimidation of the HoAP will know the Arab Palestinian as a terrorist.  It does not matter how they mask it.  It does not matter how they cover the smell.  I does not matter what cover and concealment they use to hide.
> Every time you attempt to plead the case of those that participate in, provide material support to, donate financial aid for operations that are intended to further activities that harm civilians, or harm the civilian and military administration of the Occupation Forces, or commit crimes against the citizenry of the sovereign power of Israel, YOU TOO become an accomplice to:
> 
> View attachment 459785
> SOURCE:  *Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)*​
> If you want to call it "Playtime in the Sandbox," then so be it.  It does NOT change the fact that most of the voters in 2006 voted for either HAMAS or Fatah.  And in doing so they committed acts that express Article I criteria.
> 
> If you want to call them sandbox players, then so be it:  It does not change the actions described in which the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.  Each time the HoAP takes action against the forces implementing security measures required by the Hague Convention (1907) or the acts punishable by the authority of the Geneva Convention, the HoAP only prove themselves to be a population governed by criminal behaviors.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.
Click to expand...


What Israeli attacks?

link?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*"Biden and the Pursuit of Mideast Peace":  A Conversation with Yossi Klein Halevi*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*


BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

*From the Quad to the Keyboard: How Hate Has Moved from On-Campus to Online- 2020 Never is Now Summit*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Apartheid Then, Apartheid Now? Live with Ronnie Kasrils*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Live with Dr. Hanan Ashrawi on the Future for Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel-Palestine at the International Criminal Court: What Next?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Disappearing Palestine with Ash Sarkar and Salma Karmi-Ayyoub*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Implications and Impacts of the IHRA Definition on Palestinians*


Terrorism & antisemitism - Two piles of Israeli bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Miko Peled, Steve Niva, Max Blumenthal: The Judaization of Palestine.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Occupied Thoughts: Former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes with Peter Beinart*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Occupied Thoughts: Israel/Palestine & the ICC — Sawsan Zaher with Peter Beinart*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Zoom Palestine: Frank Romano and the ICC -International Criminal Court*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Disappearing Palestine with Ash Sarkar and Salma Karmi-Ayyoub*



They clearly use 'Palestinians' to the exclusion of Jews,
and equate private ownership of by Jews to "disappearance of Palestine".

Which reveals all one needs to know about the ideology behind those vulgar
accusations of apartheid, held by those who blame the conflict on Israel.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Miko Peled, Steve Niva, Max Blumenthal: The Judaization of Palestine.*



Well, how should one "Juadize" something always carrying a Jewish name?

I'm open for suggestions.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *PALCONV2020: Black and Palestinian Liberation: Struggling Hand in Hand*



Sure nice facade..

Is that why Palestinian factions
never allow an African into any government?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.



*'Deal Of The Century'*

Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.

This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century'*
> 
> Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.
> 
> This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy
Click to expand...

OK, but where is the peace?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century'*
> 
> Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.
> 
> This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but where is the peace?
Click to expand...

OK, but is the UAE attacking Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century'*
> 
> Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.
> 
> This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but where is the peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but is the UAE attacking Israel?
Click to expand...

Have they ever? Where is the breakthrough here?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century'*
> 
> Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.
> 
> This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but where is the peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but is the UAE attacking Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have they ever? Where is the breakthrough here?
Click to expand...


It's a tectonic shift.
From the Arab League's infamous "3 no's",
to now Israel leading these countries in a defense alliance.

Also your favorite jihadi lowlifes were shown their (lack of) real value in region.
What more proof do we need that all you haters and John Kerry are but desperate fools?









						Why John Kerry and others were wrong about peace and Israel  - analysis
					

Kerry said in 2016 that “there will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that."




					www.jpost.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

*A Palestinian View on Antisemitism*


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah

*Hamas promises:*

"On this day, as we are witnessing all that is happening with the grace of Allah, we are looking forwards to two important things, which are within sight:

*Cleanse Palestine of the "filth of the Jews" by 2022*
*From the River to the Sea - establishment of Caliphate*



"But sure, how can Hamas cheerleaders be antisemites,
they're not right wing white supremacists..."


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is**


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Loyalty vs Treason*?*
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* In any survey across a national population, there will always be dissenting voices. It is NOT for America to criticize - one way or the other.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is**


*(COMMENT)*

Treachery and disloyalty are very personal issues within any national population.  It is up to the Israelis to decide what rises to the level of the crime of betrayal → the hostility towards or prejudice against Jews. It is their decision during the speech during a time when _Medinat Yisra'el _is under siege and what is punishable by law.  

We as Americans have to remember, that it was the National Council for "Jewish State" → descendants of the Twelve Tribes → representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG).  It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.  And it is up to the Israeli people to decide what that means and what relevance it has today.  NOT US!  We don't have a dog in this fight.

*



 *
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Loyalty vs Treason*?*
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* In any survey across a national population, there will always be dissenting voices. It is NOT for America to criticize - one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is**
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Treachery and disloyalty are very personal issues within any national population.  It is up to the Israelis to decide what rises to the level of the crime of betrayal → the hostility towards or prejudice against Jews. It is their decision during the speech during a time when _Medinat Yisra'el _is under siege and what is punishable by law.
> 
> We as Americans have to remember, that it was the National Council for "Jewish State" → descendants of the Twelve Tribes → representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG).  It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.  And it is up to the Israeli people to decide what that means and what relevance it has today.  NOT US!  We don't have a dog in this fight.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG). It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.


Which was outside the authority of the UN.

BTW, When Israel mentioned that resolution it had already violated virtually everything in it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel and Palestine: A Way Out of Conflict? w/ Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why Criticism Of Israel Isn't Antisemitism*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Loyalty vs Treason*?*
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* In any survey across a national population, there will always be dissenting voices. It is NOT for America to criticize - one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is**
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Treachery and disloyalty are very personal issues within any national population.  It is up to the Israelis to decide what rises to the level of the crime of betrayal → the hostility towards or prejudice against Jews. It is their decision during the speech during a time when _Medinat Yisra'el _is under siege and what is punishable by law.
> 
> We as Americans have to remember, that it was the National Council for "Jewish State" → descendants of the Twelve Tribes → representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG).  It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.  And it is up to the Israeli people to decide what that means and what relevance it has today.  NOT US!  We don't have a dog in this fight.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG). It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was outside the authority of the UN.
> 
> BTW, When Israel mentioned that resolution it had already violated virtually everything in it.
Click to expand...

What does it change,
the authority under law is with the Jewish Nation.

Let's see if for once you find anything beyond the usual baseless accusations.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Why Criticism Of Israel Isn't Antisemitism*



We should learn about criticism and antisemitism,
from a channel than not once ever criticized the Islamist govt its funded by?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel and Palestine: A Way Out of Conflict? w/ Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick*



Is there a country that according to Hill's definitions is not apartheid?
The only way he can use that accusation is by framing Jews as of different skin and race.

Which doesn't surprise me Hill sees no problem in the ideology that equates Jewish presence with an attack, and independence with a Judenfrei state, demanding it openly.

People like you and Hill are here only to flame and prolong the conflict,
for your own narcissistic feeling of importance and an easy buck,
at the expense of all involved.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained in 34 minutes*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is**



Well, if the suggestion that_ 'criticism of Israel is antisemitism',_
antisemitic on its own (which I fully agree) then what does it make of Abunima, who uses this strawman to constantly ridicule the danger of racist bigotry when it's against Jews?

She might think Israel is not speaking for her,
but it will be Israelis who will have to rescue her and her family,
once you folks decide to go full way with you plans for a CHAZA/GAZA revolution.

Idiots like you have no mercy for their grandchildren.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Loyalty vs Treason*?*
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* The PCG, almost immediately after accepting the "recommendations" of the was engaged and entangled with the Arab League. It was the Arab League that prevented the plan to come to fruition.



RoccoR said:


> representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG). It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.





P F Tinmore said:


> Which was outside the authority of the UN.
> 
> BTW, When Israel mentioned that resolution it had already violated virtually everything in it.


*(COMMENT)*
​◈  I don't know how many times I have to remind you...  The Recommendations were NOT "binding."  Applying for "recognition" is much different than compliance.​​◈  You cannot "violate" a "recommendations."  It was the PCG, and then the Israelis, that attempted to follow the recommendation; even though it was not a formal agreement.​​◈  The UN did not exercise or enforce any authority in the matter of the recommendation (it was non-binding).  The PCG exercised "self-determination"  for the entirety of the Jewish Bodies of Palestine.​
It is this very last point that the Arab Palestinians, wherein the Israelis exercised "self-determination" and the Arab Palestinians did not.  And in the last half of the 20th century, the Arab Palestinians made that mistake more than once.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained in 34 minutes*


As usual, no "Palestinian" history starts before the end of 19th century. Coincidence?

And why would the need to hide Jewish immigration from Yemen due to persecution,
predating the 1st organized Zionist immigration from Europe, or the arrival of Jews from Morocco due to the same problems facing Jews in Muslim countries as in Europe, virtually at the same time?

Why the need to frame a majority population comprised of refugees expelled from Arab countries, as "Europeans", or pretend they initiated the violence?

This really looks a desperate attempt to hide what is commonly known.
By trying so desparately to deny the anti-Jewish hostility in the Arab world,
which in response initiated the Zionist organization, these people actually reveal they
fully know their part and blame in the shameful defeat they were served by former dhimmis.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Loyalty vs Treason*?*
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The PCG, almost immediately after accepting the "recommendations" of the was engaged and entangled with the Arab League. It was the Arab League that prevented the plan to come to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> representing the Jewish Bodies of Palestine that applied to the UN Palestine Commission for recognition as the Provisional Council Government (PCG). It was the PCG → that established Israel as the Jewish State on the recommendation of the UN _[Part II B • A/RES/181 (II)]_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was outside the authority of the UN.
> 
> BTW, When Israel mentioned that resolution it had already violated virtually everything in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​◈  I don't know how many times I have to remind you...  The Recommendations were NOT "binding."  Applying for "recognition" is much different than compliance.​​◈  You cannot "violate" a "recommendations."  It was the PCG, and then the Israelis, that attempted to follow the recommendation; even though it was not a formal agreement.​​◈  The UN did not exercise or enforce any authority in the matter of the recommendation (it was non-binding).  The PCG exercised "self-determination"  for the entirety of the Jewish Bodies of Palestine.​
> It is this very last point that the Arab Palestinians, wherein the Israelis exercised "self-determination" and the Arab Palestinians did not.  And in the last half of the 20th century, the Arab Palestinians made that mistake more than once.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel violated virtually all of resolution 181 *before* any Arab League intervention.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC: TimeLine Allegations
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* OH wow! This is blatant mutilation of the facts. Pure misinformation...



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel violated virtually all of resolution 181 *before* any Arab League intervention.


*(COMMENT)*

The "recommendations" of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was not adopted until 27 November 1947.  By January 1948, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) *rejected* the invitation from the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to participate in set-up activities that would lead to independence. The UNPC was satisfied that the accomplishments made Jewish Provisional Council Government (PCG) was sufficient given the armed aggression by the Arab League that prevented further progress.

Yes, there were some skirmishes and a few serious confrontations prior to the 15 May 1948 Independence.  The most serious of which was the Arab attack (13 April 1948) on a Jewish Medical Column.  The column was set upon by Arab Forces, including Iraqi Member approximate 100 yards from a British Military Outpost.  The British Forces block the Haganah from coming to the aid of the 11 vehicle Haddasah convoy, killing 64 unarmed Doctors, Nurses, and aid personnel nearly half of which were burned alive in fire-bombed vehicles and the remainder were gunned-down by Arab automatic weapons fire as the medical staff attempted to escape the burning vehicles.  All the vehicles were destroyed and only seven survivors _(all of which were wounded)_ were later pulled from the carnage. In defense of the UK, they claim one British Other Rank was killed and two British Other Ranks were wounded, a Deputy Superintendent of Police was seriously wounded; this according to Sir John Fletcher-Cooke Counsellor in the UK Mission to the UN in New York.

The conflict was starting before the PCG could even declare its independence.

*




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century' For Israel/Palestine...Or Dud Of The Century?*
> 
> BTW, whatever happened to this dud. I haven't heard about it in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'Deal Of The Century'*
> 
> Foreign embassies in Jerusalem, Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel.
> 
> This: First UAE ambassador arrives in Israel, eyes Tel Aviv embassy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but where is the peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but is the UAE attacking Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have they ever? Where is the breakthrough here?
Click to expand...

The breakthrough is in changing attitudes. Arab nations are seeing mutual interests served by abandoning strict alliances with the Pally whiners and aligning with Israel. Beneficial trade deals with Israel are a big draw as is an alliance with the Israeli military against Iran.

Might I suggest a bit less time trolling YouTube and a bit more time understanding what is happening in the world around you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinian Refugees and the Role of UNRWA*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Meet The Wrong Type of Jew, The Media Doesn't Want You To Know Exists | Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"Imagining Together a Shared, One-State Reality" w/ Peter Beinart & Yousef Munayyer*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *"Imagining Together a Shared, One-State Reality" w/ Peter Beinart & Yousef Munayyer*


Hard to imagine.

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."      
The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5)  May Allah Pity his Soul


----------



## P F Tinmore

*2019 Yitzhak Rabin Lecture: US Jews and Israel: Are we headed for divorce?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: TimeLine Allegations
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* OH wow! This is blatant mutilation of the facts. Pure misinformation...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel violated virtually all of resolution 181 *before* any Arab League intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "recommendations" of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was not adopted until 27 November 1947.  By January 1948, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) *rejected* the invitation from the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to participate in set-up activities that would lead to independence. The UNPC was satisfied that the accomplishments made Jewish Provisional Council Government (PCG) was sufficient given the armed aggression by the Arab League that prevented further progress.
> 
> Yes, there were some skirmishes and a few serious confrontations prior to the 15 May 1948 Independence.  The most serious of which was the Arab attack (13 April 1948) on a Jewish Medical Column.  The column was set upon by Arab Forces, including Iraqi Member approximate 100 yards from a British Military Outpost.  The British Forces block the Haganah from coming to the aid of the 11 vehicle Haddasah convoy, killing 64 unarmed Doctors, Nurses, and aid personnel nearly half of which were burned alive in fire-bombed vehicles and the remainder were gunned-down by Arab automatic weapons fire as the medical staff attempted to escape the burning vehicles.  All the vehicles were destroyed and only seven survivors _(all of which were wounded)_ were later pulled from the carnage. In defense of the UK, they claim one British Other Rank was killed and two British Other Ranks were wounded, a Deputy Superintendent of Police was seriously wounded; this according to Sir John Fletcher-Cooke Counsellor in the UK Mission to the UN in New York.
> 
> The conflict was starting before the PCG could even declare its independence.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> *rejected* the invitation from the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to participate in set-up activities that would lead to independence.


It wasn't for independence but to give half of their country to colonial settlers.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: TimeLine Allegations
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* OH wow! This is blatant mutilation of the facts. Pure misinformation...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel violated virtually all of resolution 181 *before* any Arab League intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "recommendations" of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was not adopted until 27 November 1947.  By January 1948, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) *rejected* the invitation from the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to participate in set-up activities that would lead to independence. The UNPC was satisfied that the accomplishments made Jewish Provisional Council Government (PCG) was sufficient given the armed aggression by the Arab League that prevented further progress.
> 
> Yes, there were some skirmishes and a few serious confrontations prior to the 15 May 1948 Independence.  The most serious of which was the Arab attack (13 April 1948) on a Jewish Medical Column.  The column was set upon by Arab Forces, including Iraqi Member approximate 100 yards from a British Military Outpost.  The British Forces block the Haganah from coming to the aid of the 11 vehicle Haddasah convoy, killing 64 unarmed Doctors, Nurses, and aid personnel nearly half of which were burned alive in fire-bombed vehicles and the remainder were gunned-down by Arab automatic weapons fire as the medical staff attempted to escape the burning vehicles.  All the vehicles were destroyed and only seven survivors _(all of which were wounded)_ were later pulled from the carnage. In defense of the UK, they claim one British Other Rank was killed and two British Other Ranks were wounded, a Deputy Superintendent of Police was seriously wounded; this according to Sir John Fletcher-Cooke Counsellor in the UK Mission to the UN in New York.
> 
> The conflict was starting before the PCG could even declare its independence.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *rejected* the invitation from the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to participate in set-up activities that would lead to independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't for independence but to give half if their country to colonial settlers.
Click to expand...

"Their country''?

You have this "history according to Tinmore" version which is hilariously skewed.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*



Just to remind,
last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".

Want to pick up from there?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
Click to expand...

Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.

Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
Click to expand...


So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?

If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party, 
that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?

Not to mention already having one...









						Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
					

A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
Click to expand...

Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
Click to expand...

Don't give me your pathetic excuses,
just admit you love Hamas and want to execute gays in the main square.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't give me your pathetic excuses,
> just admit you love Hamas and want to execute gays in the main square.
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't give me your pathetic excuses,
> just admit you love Hamas and want to execute gays in the main square.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I get it, another touchy subject you just don't want us to address.
But we were discussing Hamas in response to *your* post...

Wasn't it your _"I love Hamas"_ post here?

Why so shy now?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be surprised that people point and laugh at your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't give me your pathetic excuses,
> just admit you love Hamas and want to execute gays in the main square.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it, another touchy subject you just don't want us to address.
> But we were discussing Hamas in response to *your* post...
> 
> Wasn't it your _"I love Hamas"_ post here?
> 
> Why so shy now?
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me. This was a great interview. 


Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Amid Deadly Israeli Crackdown on Gaza Protests, Chomsky Says U.S. Must End Support for “Murderers”*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Amid Deadly Israeli Crackdown on Gaza Protests, Chomsky Says U.S. Must End Support for “Murderers”*


I suggest you email Chomsky, Fatah and Hamas. Those entities need to have a discussion about their support for Islamic terrorist murderers.

Thanks. Please cc us on your email.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Palestinian makes the case for Hamas to an Israeli | Standing Up Clips*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind,
> last time I attempted to discuss this video with you,
> and it was  pointed to Kefah Abukhdeir explaining how "nationalism is forbidden in Islam",
> making Hamas essentially illegitimate, you then called Kefah an "Israeli shill".
> 
> Want to pick up from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few Palestinians want to live in an "Islamic state." They universally call for democratic elections.
> 
> Hamas is criticized from the far right for being too nationalistic and democratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there're more extreme right wing Palestinian parties than Hamas,
> and you don't see how this proves the opposite of your opening claim?
> 
> If Hamas, the supposedly majority elected party,
> that set establishment of Caliphate a political goal, is not the most right wing Pali party,
> then how is this not the proof that the majority indeed wants an Islamic state?
> 
> Not to mention already having one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas court says women need a male guardian's approval to travel
> 
> 
> A Hamas-run Islamic court in the Gaza Strip has ruled that women require the permission of a male guardian to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas only won because Fatah sucks that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't give me your pathetic excuses,
> just admit you love Hamas and want to execute gays in the main square.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it, another touchy subject you just don't want us to address.
> But we were discussing Hamas in response to *your* post...
> 
> Wasn't it your _"I love Hamas"_ post here?
> 
> Why so shy now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for reminding me. This was a great interview.
> 
> 
> Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?
Click to expand...


Of course, Israelis always slander only the most liberal Jew-loving Jihadists on the planet.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad even fight for the rights *of each* in the LGBTQ community -
to have an equal opportunity for a city square with the gallows in their favorite color!

Even Nancy Pelosi knows that Hamas fits better
to lead her party into a more progressive future...


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*P&P Live! Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick | EXCEPT FOR PALESTINE with Michelle Alexander*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Live with Tariq Ali: Edward Said and a Vision for Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Can We Talk About Israel Without Shouting? Prof. Peter Beinart Interviewed by R' Shmuly Yanklowitz*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

What passes for "scholar" in the Islamic terrorist enclave occupied by Pally's is a bit foreign to westerners. 



*Palestinian Scholar: If Muslims Want to Live in Peace and Security, They Must Get Rid of the Jews*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



So what does it say about the intentions of a poster who defends Hamas on a daily basis,
and then shouts_ "heil Hamas, Jews to the gas!"_ calling it 'valid criticism of Israel'?

Thanks for proving once again you lie knowingly
when claiming not to target Jews collectively.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*How The New York Times rigs news on Israel Palestine - James North*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*FMEP & MEI Congressional Briefing Series on Israel-Palestine: Free Speech & the Right to Protest*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Legislating Against Criticism of Israel – the Ongoing Assault on Americans’ Free Speech*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Imagining the Way(s) Forward: PART 1 - Palestinian Thought Leaders*


*Imagining the Way(s) Forward - Part 2: Jewish-Israeli Thought Leaders*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ilan Pappe & Diana Buttu: What Next for Palestine?*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  *Hatefest *
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* This is anything but objective. I could only stand about 30 minutes before the gag reflex took over.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Ilan Pappe & Diana Buttu: What Next for Palestine?*


*(COMMENT)*

The presentation starts-off (right out of the box) with the narrator:

•  Gaza is being bombed right now → with no mention of what the bombing was in response to - the cause.​•  That the (undefined Palestinians) are under siege.​•  Ethnic Cleasing as planed in 1948.​​◈  Ms Buttu begins with → "Israel is extinguishing the Arab Palestinians" mantra.​✦  How terrible it is in "Palestine."​✦  How the Israeli Plan is to get as much Palestinian land as they can, with as few as possible Palestinians.​✦  That the (President) Biden Administration is:​✧  Not going to move the embassy back to Tel Aviv.​✧  Is not going to reverse its decision on the recognition of the Golan Heights annexation.​✦  That the (President) Biden Administration is:  ​✧  Probably going to reverse the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) office as a _de facto_ embassy for the Palestinian people.​✧  Probably re-establish funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA).​
Ms Buttu mentions how the Bilateral Agreement is a failed model with was doomed to fail from its inception.  And she thinks that the Arab Palestinian reestablishment of in Security Cooperation will help Mahmoud Abbas maintain control as the President of State of Palestine.  That maybe this the renewed relationship in the Security Cooperation will be sufficient to delay elections once again.

◈  Ilan Pappe opens his oratory with:​✦    How he agrees with everything Ms Buttu said, and how dismal the conditions are on West Bank and Gaza Strip.​✦    He makes another glancing blow a half-century of occupation is simply a derivative of Israeli evil intentions.​✦    That the "assault" on the West Bank today is more dangerous than the Nakba.​✦    Isreal has the strongest military in the Region​✧    Israels Policies are never criticized​✧    Israel is operating under immunity for everything.​✧    Israel seems totally free to bomb Gaza at will.​​ ◈  And then Ilan Pappe goes into a diatribe about the millions spent on neutralizing open criticism.  That Israel tries to justify military operations as operations against the "existential threat."  Pappe further complains that Israel is "powerful."  And that Israel goes to some extent to neutralize Arab Palestinian attempts to delegitimize its existence.​
*(Ω)*

This was a mutual lovefest for the Palestinians and a hatefest towards the Israelis.  There is no criticism here _(unfounded) _that we haven't seen before; and will undoubtedly see again.

* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*‘The Making of Hamas's Foreign Policy’: Palestine Chronicle TV Hosts Daud Abdullah & Na’eem Jeenah*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Question: Why don't Palestinians just move to Jordan?*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Question: Why don't Palestinians just move to Jordan?*



Indeed.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Consequences
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* *IF* in a one-state solution, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is threatened with extinction, *THEN* it will spell the end of the Arab Palestinians. And it is hard to envision a one-state solution that will preserve the JNH.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate*


*(COMMENT)*

Who will the UN _(ie the world)_ blame if their constant meddling in the consequences of the regional affair is such that it drives the territory into one last Civil War where the Arab Palestinians get their to realize their one-state that will result in a final conflict.

The UN is rapidly approaching a paradoxical situation in which their chaotic soup of conceptual arguments over which sides' rights takes priority over the other.

◈  On the one hand, you cannot have the conditions set for a one-state solution that will protect the Jewish people from the excesses of the past in which the original intent was to the establishment in Palestine a Jewish National Home (JNH) should the Great War result in the fall of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic in favor of the Allied Powers.​​◈  On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:​​✦  The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, or any follow-on decisions derived from those concepts.​​✦   The authority of the San Remo Convention (1920). ​​✦  The premise that a JNH was necessary to reduce the probability of further mass expulsion, massacres, fraud under the color of law, and even cases of genocide.​
There is something wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict.  

*




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:


Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*StandWithUs Pro-Israel Activist Speaks Before Rachel Corrie Film at SFJFF*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.
> 
> What other people would, or should, accept that?
> 
> Give me some names.
Click to expand...

Indeed, what country? Is this connected to those "new states" you claim existed since creation by the Treaty of Lausanne? You know, those " new states" you can't identify.

Indeed, give me some names of those "new states".


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.
> 
> What other people would, or should, accept that?
> 
> Give me some names.
Click to expand...


Indeed, Arabs themselves accepted that and set the precedent
by expelling the Jewish communities from the 4 holy holy cities.

They have no one to blame for the payback.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate*



You love that Israeli channel, don't you?

Probably the only place to see an actual discussion between a variety of views,
rather than the echochambers Beinart most BDS supporters are used to hide behind.
BTW, do you realize that Rabbi Sherki and Rabbi HaKohen teach at the same Yeshivah...


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Consequences
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* *IF* in a one-state solution, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is threatened with extinction, *THEN* it will spell the end of the Arab Palestinians. And it is hard to envision a one-state solution that will preserve the JNH.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who will the UN _(ie the world)_ blame if their constant meddling in the consequences of the regional affair is such that it drives the territory into one last Civil War where the Arab Palestinians get their to realize their one-state that will result in a final conflict.
> 
> The UN is rapidly approaching a paradoxical situation in which their chaotic soup of conceptual arguments over which sides' rights takes priority over the other.
> 
> ◈  On the one hand, you cannot have the conditions set for a one-state solution that will protect the Jewish people from the excesses of the past in which the original intent was to the establishment in Palestine a Jewish National Home (JNH) should the Great War result in the fall of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic in favor of the Allied Powers.​​◈  On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:​​✦  The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, or any follow-on decisions derived from those concepts.​​✦   The authority of the San Remo Convention (1920). ​​✦  The premise that a JNH was necessary to reduce the probability of further mass expulsion, massacres, fraud under the color of law, and even cases of genocide.​
> There is something wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?

What _"wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict"_ - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self determination of both cultures.  It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Aspirations 'vs' Protential Realizations
⁜→ rylah, et al,

*BLUF:* There was a time when racial kinship and ancient bonds, common between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jewish people, were spoken of openly and not in the manner fashionable today and called "apartheid." In fact, the exchange (1919) of such notions between HRH Emir Faisal and Dr Chaim Weizmann not only ran counter the implications of "apartheid" but enforced the idea that the "surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations" would be furthered by the "closest possible collaboration" in working towards that mutual end-state. But that was a century ago, and no one survives that time period in which such a bond is still promoted today. In fact, that many videos posted by the pro-Arab Palestinians in this discussion group are representative of anything except those ideals.



rylah said:


> Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?
> 
> What _"wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict"_ - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures.  It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.


*(COMMENT)*

The vision of a one-state solution in which the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not threatened is expressed in the 1948 rejection by the Arabs of Palestine wherein they will never recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. It is easily seen that the animosity between the two cultures has expanded into a series of multigenerational developments in which dislike has grown into an out'n'out hatred with a complete denial of any bond or right of the Jewish people. 

​
The question is NOT "Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?" but rather is it ever going to be possible for the common theme of the Faisal-Weismann Agreement _(of a hundred years ago)_ ever come to be realized again?

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Gruppe42 1o1: Ronnie Barkan about Palestine, Peace, History & Boycott*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ep. 169: Pink Floyd Co-Founder Roger Waters & Rep. Rashida Tlaib -- Rumble 25 Million LIVE*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel & Palestine: U.S. Aid to Israel & the Palestinians*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Speaking Out for the Voiceless with Rabbi David Saperstein - AJC Advocacy Anywhere*


----------



## Hollie

Palestinian-Lebanese Scholar Ali Al-Yousuf: We Will Rip out the Israelis' Spleens and Livers


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Aspirations 'vs' Protential Realizations
> ⁜→ rylah, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* There was a time when racial kinship and ancient bonds, common between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jewish people, were spoken of openly and not in the manner fashionable today and called "apartheid." In fact, the exchange (1919) of such notions between HRH Emir Faisal and Dr Chaim Weizmann not only ran counter the implications of "apartheid" but enforced the idea that the "surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations" would be furthered by the "closest possible collaboration" in working towards that mutual end-state. But that was a century ago, and no one survives that time period in which such a bond is still promoted today. In fact, that many videos posted by the pro-Arab Palestinians in this discussion group are representative of anything except those ideals.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?
> 
> What _"wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict"_ - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures.  It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vision of a one-state solution in which the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not threatened is expressed in the 1948 rejection by the Arabs of Palestine wherein they will never recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. It is easily seen that the animosity between the two cultures has expanded into a series of multigenerational developments in which dislike has grown into an out'n'out hatred with a complete denial of any bond or right of the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> View attachment 469611
> ​
> The question is NOT "Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?" but rather is it ever going to be possible for the common theme of the Faisal-Weismann Agreement _(of a hundred years ago)_ ever come to be realized again?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Well, I'd argue that the multi-generational dispute was the main reason for initiating the JNF.
Before the establishment of the JNF and after it, it's a given. The JNF is in a dispute with a culture that till this day, values internal revenge until 11th cousin as a social norm.

And second, point to the fact that neither Weitzman nor Emir Faisal held the kind of authority among their own people, neither the act of proclamation was aimed at them, both had to deal with British authorities and international powers in "their language".

That exactly leads me back to my initial point - the norms according to which we're expected to form our relationship and society force us to play roles rather than express our national aspirations, and rather complicate and prolong the dispute.

Especially this conflict, in which everyone around, it seems, has a hand.

But of all the politicians, activists, clerks, the only people who've never publicly met to address this dispute are our elders, royals, sages of the generation... those who hold beyond just political power, but rather represent the core of both cultural archetypes. I don't know of a single time Rabbi Kook Ztvk"l ever got to meet Haj Amin Hesseini.

That one trajectory - a formation of a specific new cultural institution for the region.
Second trajectory -transition of Israel towards a parliamentary monarchy (for lack of better term).

That is what Weizman and Faisal were essentially talking about, they saw Israel more as an ally in an integral revolution of the region in cooperation with the Arab world rather than a limited national govt in a geographic unit. Basically Iran's vision, only through trade, science and focus on culture. I think they were correct, only a bit early. PM Netanyahu is not a king, but it's quiet difficult not to notice the emergence of the  "king"/"kingmaker" themes in recent campaigns, and the cultural shift among the young.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Aspirations 'vs' Potential Realizations
⁜→ rylah, et al,

*PREFACE: * I'm fairly sure, that I agree with most (if not all) you've said.

There were three elements I was responding to in your commentary:  _(Note:  I will not address the issue of the Gaza Strip and that population)._




Excerpts from • rylah Commentary said:


> *E1:*  Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?
> 
> *E2: * What _"wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict"_
> - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures.
> 
> *E3:*   It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.



*Counter-Position to E1:*  I cannot see a viable One-State Solution to the Regional Conflict in which the two-distinct cultures and thrive in harmony.  While there are always anecdotal examples wherein the two cultures co-exist in peace, there are many more examples in which the hostilities erupt as a result of proximity to one and the other.   Do you honestly see a chance _(in your lifetime)_ where an additional 1.2 to 1.9 Million Arab Palestinians _(or an increase by more than 10% but less than 20%)_, in which nearly half are unemployed → can be assimilated into the Greater State of Israel•Palestine without the social services of Israel can accommodate the influx?  While I see the positive intentions, you've just described a condition in which the working class of the Israelis will have to support the Arab Palestinians and pay for the necessary solutions to bring them up to the same level as any other citizen.  How much of a burden will the Israeli citizens absorb before the system become politically untenable?

*Counter-Position to E2:* In my opinion, it is not a matter of Western Norms. It is a matter of the differential in norms from the Israel Culture to the Arab Palestinian Culture. For at least two decades, the Arab Palestinians have been immortalizing role models like Dalal al-Maghribi, the patriotism of the Fedayeen, the heroism of those that attacked the Olympic Village, those that ambushed the Jordanian King, hijacked airliners, were involved in suicide bombings, and alike. If the indoctrination only has a lasting effect on half a percent of the 1.5 Million assimilated, that becomes several thousand jihadists running loose in Israel. Remember that it only took 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda to create the havoc that still reverberates today from 9/11.  What is the level of risk the Israels will be willing to take in a One-State Solution?

*Counter-Position to E3:* Who's Aspirations are we looking at? The Israelis do not have a common theme on the matter. And it is very clear that the Arab Palestinians do not speak with one voice. When we ask ourselves, what do we envision a One-State Solution to look like, what are the expectations?



rylah said:


> Well, I'd argue that the multi-generational dispute was the main reason for initiating the JNF.
> Before the establishment of the JNF and after it, it's a given. The JNF is in a dispute with a culture that till this day, values internal revenge until 11th cousin as a social norm.


*(COMMENT)*

We are in agreement here.  But I think the repercussion will be far more complex than I can even contemplate.




rylah said:


> And second, point to the fact that neither Weitzman nor Emir Faisal held the kind of authority among their own people, neither the act of proclamation was aimed at them, both had to deal with British authorities and international powers in "their language".


*(COMMENT)*

Oh yes, this is so very true.  Yet, by mid-century, Who, having communicated their full powers, have agreed that His Majesty The King _(of Great-Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India)_ recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir _(Hashemite Emir Faisal)_ as the sovereign thereof.

Authority is rather an elusive concept when dealing in political influence and raw power.




rylah said:


> That exactly leads me back to my initial point - the norms according to which we're expected to form our relationship and society force us to play roles rather than express our national aspirations, and rather complicate and prolong the dispute.


*(COMMENT)*

It is a very strange notion, yet, it has a ring of truth.



rylah said:


> That is what Weizman and Faisal were essentially talking about, they saw Israel more as an ally in an integral revolution of the region in cooperation with the Arab world rather than a limited national govt in a geographic unit. Basically Iran's vision, only through trade, science and focus on culture. I think they were correct, only a bit early. PM Netanyahu is not a king, but it's quiet difficult not to notice the emergence of the  "king"/"kingmaker" themes in recent campaigns, and the cultural shift among the young.


*(COMMENT)*

Some aspirations a far beyond that which one is expected to achieve.  And yet, some ideas grow to something far more than was envisioned.  I'm not sure what is going to be more applicable.  But, I take the Battle-hardened Prime Minister as his word:  


BREITBART
*TEL AVIV (8 Apr 2019)*
The U.S. is fully aware of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s flat rejection of the
creation of a Palestinian State
along with his plans to extend Israeli law to West Bank settlements, the Israeli premier said on Monday.​

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Can Israel Win the Propaganda War? (July 20 2020 )*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Can Israel Win the Propaganda War? (July 20 2020 )*



A very strange question for a nation that has already fundamentally influenced
half the world, even without having a state, don't you think?

Not to mention India.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Decolonizing Knowledge on Palestine | Ahlam Muhtaseb | TEDxMSJC*


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.
> 
> What other people would, or should, accept that?
> 
> Give me some names.
Click to expand...

Still no answer, huh?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jeff Halper - Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine | Pluto Live*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Mainstreaming the Extreme: How Meir Kahane’s Vision of Jewish Supremacy Conquered Israeli Politics*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Janna Jihad (youngest journalist in the world) : The Inalienable Right of Return (EN. VO**)*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Nathan Thrall, Peter Beinart, and "A Day in the Life of Abed Salama"*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Human Rights, Occupation & Democracy*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*APARTHEID THEN AND NOW   A Conversation with South African and Palestinian Anti Apartheid Activists*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"We need to decolonise our understanding of antisemitism."  -  Robert Cohen*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Understanding "Apartheid" ...
⁜→ et al,

*PREFACE: * ​



​*BLUF*:  It is one matter when the uneducated try to use the situation in South Africa to explain - by example - the situation between the separation of Israel from the West Bank/Gaza Strip.  It is an entirely different matter altogether when the pro-Arab Palestinians, knowing that it is a *fallacy of a false analogy*.  (See: *Logical Fallacy.*)



P F Tinmore said:


> *APARTHEID THEN AND NOW   A Conversation with South African and Palestinian Anti Apartheid Activists*


*(COMMENT)*

Apartheid has a specific legal definition used by the International Criminal Court (ICC); not that you should find the ICC particularly trustworthy... (See: Article 7 (2h), *Rome Statute* of the International Criminal Court).

◈  In the case of South Africa, the two racially different populations were all within one sovereignty and kept apart by the single sovereign power (South Africa).​​◈  In the case of the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, there are no real racially motivated reasons for the separation between enforcement of immigration measures of Israel which denies (non-citizens) Arab Palestinians access to cross into Israel.​
Similarly, the restriction on Arab Palestinian movement within Area "C," as agreed upon in the *Oslo II Accord*, wherein Israel has full civil and security control by agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory *(undefined)* that is liberated *(from whom)*.  Israel's border security protocols and immigration policies are not dissimilar in nature to most nations.  Most nations, as does Israel, generally follow *Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR):
​_*Article 12*_​1. Everyone* lawfully within the territory of a State* shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions _*except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others*_, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the *right to enter his own country*.​
Now, it is understood by many, within the pro-Arab Palestinians movement, there is no single voice.  Some factions:

◈  Consider Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. ​​◈  Consider Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit.​​◈  Consider Palestine to be based on pre-June 4th 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital​
Restrictions pertaining to border-crossers protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.  Many of the general restrictions are based on the necessity to protect against the activities of those factions that either:

◈  Consider Armed struggle to be the only way to liberate Palestine.​​◈  Consider there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​​I am just one voice and do not speak for the Israelis. However, I can see just in this very small thumbnail view that the State of Israel, which protects the Jewish National Home (JNH), is in peril from the Jihadists, Fedayeen Activists, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters that are the composition of the various hostile factions protected _(and even idolized)_ by the Arab Palestinian People.

The current cry by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) that is supported by the Arab Palestinian people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
​_*Terror, Terror, Terror – remains Fatah’s motto for 2021*_​

Now, by and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the HoAP operations that unlawfully and intentionally use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.   By and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian operations that have kidnapped, or murdered innocent Israelis.  By and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the indiscriminate use of rockets, mortars, and incendiary devices against civilian targets.  And the international community (including the ICC) has been relatively silent on HoAP openly violating Customary and International Humanitarian Law pertaining to Protected persons (Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israelis), or seriously damages the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them. 

While there are many, many other violations I might speak to, the one that has given rise to barriers on peace negotiation is the weakness of the international community to speak on the issues prohibit HoAP advocacy that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”).  This, by itself, raises questions of misfeasance, malfeasance, and non-feasance on the part of both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the ICC.

ALL these snippets pour fuel on the fire as to why it is necessary (in the eyes of many) for Israel to hold extra-territorial jurisdiction on the potential threats its nation faces just from the adjacent HoAP.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I am just one voice and do not speak for the Israelis.


You could have fooled me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the *right to enter his own country*.


Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who *normally live* in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.
> 
> What other people would, or should, accept that?
> 
> Give me some names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer, huh?
Click to expand...

Still no answer on how Palestinians are “defending” themselves against Israel, huh?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Understanding "Apartheid" ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*: It is interesting that you should pick that clause. I notice that you are using A/RES/181 II as a source document.



RoccoR said:


> 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the *right to enter his own country*.





P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who *normally live* in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.


*(COMMENT)*

What you are saying is exactly true.  
https://www.newsbeast.gr/files/1/2017/12/1923_lausanne_treaty.pdf
*The Treaty of Lausanne → Section II • Nationality → Article 30* - does say:  "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."   The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem were in territory Annexed by Jordan, and essentially became sovereign Jordanian Territory.  Jordan was the first country after The Great War (WWI) that claimed the territory - becoming the de facto "successor state."  Transfer complete.​​Yes, again you are correct.  International Law does make two indelible points:

◈  "*arbitrarily deprived*" → As an outside observer, I do not see any people, that present a threat of one sort or another being denied entry. Were any of these people born in "Israel" or otherwise granted "Israeli citizenship?" Do any of these people present a threat to Israel? Were any being denied immigration for a qualifying reason under the law? This is not "arbitrary."​​◈  "*right to enter his own country*" Again, is an Israeli Citizen or other qualified candidates, being denied entry into their country in which they hold citizenship?​​I am fairly sure (there is a high probability) that you can come up with an Arab Palestinian (over the age of 70) that "might" make a case for citizenship.  But remember, most countries expect loyalty in citizenship.  It is up to the Israelis to determine the validity of the claim or the degree loyalty they have when applying.  How many Arab Palestinians can honestly say that they have not participated in activities punishable under *Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention*?

It is up to the Israelis, but I see a cultural behavior pattern that idolizes and commemorates Hostile Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians politically support and reward known Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters as they conduct "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Understanding "Apartheid" ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *PREFACE*: It is interesting that you should pick that clause. I notice that you are using A/RES/181 II as a source document.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the *right to enter his own country*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who *normally live* in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What you are saying is exactly true.
> https://www.newsbeast.gr/files/1/2017/12/1923_lausanne_treaty.pdf
> *The Treaty of Lausanne → Section II • Nationality → Article 30* - does say:  "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."   The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem were in territory Annexed by Jordan, and essentially became sovereign Jordanian Territory.  Jordan was the first country after The Great War (WWI) that claimed the territory - becoming the de facto "successor state."  Transfer complete.​​Yes, again you are correct.  International Law does make two indelible points:
> 
> ◈  "*arbitrarily deprived*" → As an outside observer, I do not see any people, that present a threat of one sort or another being denied entry. Were any of these people born in "Israel" or otherwise granted "Israeli citizenship?" Do any of these people present a threat to Israel? Were any being denied immigration for a qualifying reason under the law? This is not "arbitrary."​​◈  "*right to enter his own country*" Again, is an Israeli Citizen or other qualified candidates, being denied entry into their country in which they hold citizenship?​​I am fairly sure (there is a high probability) that you can come up with an Arab Palestinian (over the age of 70) that "might" make a case for citizenship.  But remember, most countries expect loyalty in citizenship.  It is up to the Israelis to determine the validity of the claim or the degree loyalty they have when applying.  How many Arab Palestinians can honestly say that they have not participated in activities punishable under *Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention*?
> 
> It is up to the Israelis, but I see a cultural behavior pattern that idolizes and commemorates Hostile Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians politically support and reward known Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters as they conduct "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How many Palestinians did not live in peace with their neighbors when they returned home?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Failed Attempts to Return Home: Discrimination Against Palestinian-Americans at the Israeli Border*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  Understanding "Apartheid" ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*: Annecdotial Trickery



P F Tinmore said:


> How many Palestinians did not live in peace with their neighbors when they returned home?


*(COMMENT)*

I do not know, but the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have engaged in the pattern of criminal behaviors from the very beginning (1968).

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO){Chair Person is Mahmoud Abbas} Words of Peace:


			
				Palestine Liberation Organization said:
			
		

> *Article 7:* ... He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.
> *Article 9:* Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
> *Article 10:* Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.


*




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Movement and the Middle East: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Divided the American Left*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Virginia Tilley: Does the U.S. Support an Apartheid State?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*LINDA SARSOUR (organizer, activist, author, badass) on #NotTooDeep // Grace Helbig*


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rabab Abdulhadi: How and Why the Israel Lobby Is Suppressing Free Speech*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*20 Questions: An Israeli asks a Palestinian*


*20 questions: A Palestinian Asks an Israeli

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?*



As opposed to supporting Islamic terrorists such as the Pal Arabs?

Wouldn’t that be obvious?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to supporting Islamic terrorists such as the Pal Arabs?
> 
> Wouldn’t that be obvious?
Click to expand...

Indeed, if you want to plunder the territory, Israel is your obvious choice.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to supporting Islamic terrorists such as the Pal Arabs?
> 
> Wouldn’t that be obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, if you want to plunder the territory, Israel is your obvious choice.
Click to expand...

.

Indeed, your baseless whining is more deflection.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.        
SUBTOPIC:  US Support of Israel  ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*: Thirty years ago, I was outstandingly opposed to the interpretation of historical events and political reasoning of Dr Noam Chomsky, PhD.  Today, not so much.  I still disagree with his interpretation, or should I say → his characterization, of how the world powers operated since Alexander the Great.  Dr Chomsky tends to make colonialism and settler utilization by era/period world powers as rather evil.  Whereas I tend to think_ (independently)_ that World Powers evolve; political reasoning evolves and regional area management by the powers that be → evolves.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?*


*(COMMENT)*

The proper operation and functioning of a world power evolve over time.  And the pitfall that people like Dr Chomsky _(and a couple in this discussion group)_ trip over is that the use of today's philosophies in diplomacy and political relationships cannot be applied to 18th, 19th and 20th Century world powers, any more than they could be applied to the Kingdom of Antigonus II Gonatas _(the hegemony over Greece)_ or the reign of Romulus ROMVLVS REX _(first King of Rome)_.  And how different would the development of Europe and the Mediterranean _(including that of Palestine)_ be if Gaius Julius Caesar had not extended imperial power in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome? *(RHETORICAL)*

It is easy for us to look back and try to apply contemporary leanings to past leaderships and criticize them for their faults.  But in their time, they did what was expected _(probability of action) _of them given the philosophies of the day.  How many times, historically, had the overall Region of Palestine changed hands in the political control of the region? *(RHETORICAL)*  And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?  *(RHETORICAL)* In the last thousand years, how many times had the indigenous population hold the sovereignty of the region?  *(RHETORICAL)*  These are just some of the philosophical considerations that must be made and accounted for, before rendering judgment. Even when, in 1776, the US declared its independence, it was considered a treasonist act by the colonial parent - NOT - the Right of Self-Determination. It is simply foolish to try and retroactively apply contemporary political theory to the decisions of the historical powers in the evolution of the people and government.

*



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?


And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?
> 
> 
> 
> And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.
Click to expand...


Apparently, this narrative does not suffice the claim for an Arab sovereignty in this land.

The same revision of history can be used to call the average US citizen in Milwaukee -
"those indigenous who put down roots and built the cities",
and yet we both clearly understand this is absurd.

*Fact is - *these people can barely even pronounce the name of the place,
and have managed to build nothing but one town in this land,
the rest is ancient cities they've settled, the names of which,
they mostly do not actually understand.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel Engage Debate: Dr. Jeff Halper vs Rabbi Dov Lipman*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?
> 
> 
> 
> And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.
Click to expand...

Occupation doesn't mean ownership.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?
> 
> 
> 
> And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.
Click to expand...

Holy duck Batman ! Why did you so blatantly duck his question ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?
> 
> 
> 
> And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy duck Batman ! Why did you so blatantly duck his question ?
Click to expand...

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?
> 
> 
> 
> And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy duck Batman ! Why did you so blatantly duck his question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.
Click to expand...

You confuse Islamic occupation with ownership.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.  
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*:  When I use the terms, I use them very specifically.  And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty _(They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)_

*BLUF*:   Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:

◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​


P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.


*(REFERENCE)

territorial sovereignty* • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty.* It is the ‘principle of the  exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory *. . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence.  Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein,* to the exclusion of any other State*, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
*SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599

*effectivites *An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of _title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. _See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
*SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177

*occupation*:  Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
*SOURCE*:  Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907

*(COMMENT)*

*IF* country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," *THEN* that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.

*IF* Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, *THEN* Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.

*IF* Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". *THEN* Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.

*IF* Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT _demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory _to the exclusion of any Country "A", *THEN* country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.

WHAT does the deceptive argument say?

What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  When I use the terms, I use them very specifically.  And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty _(They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)_
> 
> *BLUF*:   Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:
> 
> ◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> 
> territorial sovereignty* • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty.* It is the ‘principle of the  exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory *. . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence.  Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein,* to the exclusion of any other State*, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
> John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599
> 
> *effectivites *An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of _title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. _See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
> John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177
> 
> *occupation*:  Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
> The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> *SOURCE*:  Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," *THEN* that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.
> 
> *IF* Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, *THEN* Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.
> 
> *IF* Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". *THEN* Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.
> 
> *IF* Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT _demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory _to the exclusion of any Country "A", *THEN* country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.
> 
> WHAT does the deceptive argument say?
> 
> What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (_animus_), and two is the *peaceful and continuous* display of state authority (_factum_). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of *state authority must be peaceful and continuous. *​

When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?

Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. *But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.*​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  When I use the terms, I use them very specifically.  And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty _(They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)_
> 
> *BLUF*:   Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:
> 
> ◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> 
> territorial sovereignty* • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty.* It is the ‘principle of the  exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory *. . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence.  Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein,* to the exclusion of any other State*, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
> John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599
> 
> *effectivites *An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of _title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. _See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
> John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177
> 
> *occupation*:  Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
> The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> *SOURCE*:  Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> IF* country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," *THEN* that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.
> 
> *IF* Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, *THEN* Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.
> 
> *IF* Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". *THEN* Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.
> 
> *IF* Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT _demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory _to the exclusion of any Country "A", *THEN* country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.
> 
> WHAT does the deceptive argument say?
> 
> What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (_animus_), and two is the *peaceful and continuous* display of state authority (_factum_). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of *state authority must be peaceful and continuous. *​
> 
> When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?
> 
> Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. *But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.*​
Click to expand...

Islamic invasions and occupations have never been peaceful.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews. 
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*:  Again, I am a layman.  But I don't think you have that right.

*BLUF*:    The term "_animus_" does mean "will" or "intent."  The operative operative word after "animus" is (the intent to do what) and you gave us "_factum;_" which means:​​_FACTUM_​Lat.: a deed, or accomplishment. With respect to a change in a person's domicile, the factum is the person's physical presence in the new domicile. In civil law the word factum distinguishes a matter of fact from a matter of law.​
How does that work?



P F Tinmore said:


> There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (_animus_), and two is the *peaceful and continuous* display of state authority (_factum_). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of *state authority must be peaceful and continuous. *​
> 
> When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?
> 
> Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. *But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.*​


*(A COUPLE POINTS)*

Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory???  I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.

Help me out here... 

◈. What law says "peaceful and continuous?"​
◈. What law says that Jodan and not abandon the West Bank to the Israelis?​​Help me out here... 

◈. Which came first, the Jordanian Territory that was Occupied by Israel?​​◈. When did Israel take any sovereign territory from the Arab Palestinians?​​




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  Again, I am a layman.  But I don't think you have that right.
> 
> *BLUF*:    The term "_animus_" does mean "will" or "intent."  The operative operative word after "animus" is (the intent to do what) and you gave us "_factum;_" which means:​​_FACTUM_​Lat.: a deed, or accomplishment. With respect to a change in a person's domicile, the factum is the person's physical presence in the new domicile. In civil law the word factum distinguishes a matter of fact from a matter of law.​
> How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (_animus_), and two is the *peaceful and continuous* display of state authority (_factum_). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of *state authority must be peaceful and continuous. *​
> 
> When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?
> 
> Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. *But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.*​
> 
> 
> 
> *(A COUPLE POINTS)*
> 
> Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory???  I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.
> 
> Help me out here...
> 
> ◈. What law says "peaceful and continuous?"​
> ◈. What law says that Jodan and not abandon the West Bank to the Israelis?​​Help me out here...
> 
> ◈. Which came first, the Jordanian Territory that was Occupied by Israel?​​◈. When did Israel take any sovereign territory from the Arab Palestinians?​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory??? I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.


I wasn't talking about 1967.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​


P F Tinmore said:


> I wasn't talking about 1967.


*(COMMENT)*

Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Occupation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:    In May 1948, Israel exercised its Right to Self-Determination.



P F Tinmore said:


> I wasn't talking about 1967.





P F Tinmore said:


> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?


*(COMMENT)

SHORT ANSWER*:  It was a *"transfer"* action. _ (Trustee to Independent Goverment)_

◈. The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.​◈. The Allied Powers decided to place the territory under a Mandate to the British Empire.​◈. The UN acquired the territory under the Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System (Articles 77)​◈. The United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC) was created by United Nations Resolution 181. It was responsible for implementing the UN Partition Plan of Palestine and acting as the Provisional Government of Palestine. The United Nations Palestine Commission was subordinate activity reporting to the Security Council.​◈.  The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum, on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the UNPC that so far as the Mandatory Power is concerned the UNPC will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.​◈. Israel was a participant to the UNPC working Group that was establishing the necessary self-government institutions for independence.  However the Arab Palestines declined to participate.​◈.  On midnight 14/15 May 1952 The National Council For the Jewish State declared Independence and applied for UN recognition.  The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) transmitted its displeasure and refused to recongnize the UN Resolution and anything derived from it.​ 




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
Click to expand...

Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.


No they didn't.

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
Click to expand...

Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
Click to expand...


Right, that is if you aim to mislead by leaving out the context.

Indeed, Israel's independence was declared in the midst of a territorial conflict, including a clear expression of good will to negotiate peace with its neighbors. However this  does not resulted in superseding of the „de-recognition‟ of the State, and self-determination in the territory vested with the sovereignty of Israel aka the Jewish Nation - by international law.

Nothing can supersede that, except for the sovereign choice of the Jewish Nation itself,
and even that can be chosen to be later reversed invoking same forementioned law.





__





						List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  You deny this - and so all I can do is tell you what happened.  (And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty.  I did not say they did.  They acquired control of the territory → the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne."  A “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty _(an international agreement concluded between States)_ is in force.  (Article 1 • *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*)


			
				Treaty of Lausanne said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> *SOURCE*:  *Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne*​


​
The Arab Palestinians were NOT a signatory to the Treaty, they were NOT invited into the Treaty, and were NOT a state eligible to be a State which took part in the drawing up and adopting of the text of the treaty.  The Arab Palestinians were only to received the benefit that the Allied Powers agreed upon themselves as necessary.

I know that many cite Article 30 as distributing territory (new states).  But Article 30 only addresses "nationality."

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) covered the territories renounced by the Turkish Republic; that being Section I • Territorial Clauses.  Article 30 is found in Section II • Nationality.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) did not mention Palestine by name.  The territory of Palestine was covered under the Syria (Article 3); that being from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia.

Even if the Allied Powers had NOT partitioned any parcel of land between the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia, there would be NO Palestine as the Mandate defined it.  In fact, there would be NO nations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq.  And, Jerusalem would be its own Sanjak along with half the Sinai Desert (North Sinai) that would be included in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.  So again, there would be NO Palestine as we know it today, or even in 1922.

It was the strength and meaning the Allied Powers, as the Victors of The Great War (WWI), supported in the text of the Treaty that allowed the Allied Powers to determine the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Boundaries
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:    Well, I guess that it is a good thing that Customary International Law says that don't need your interpretation of the real ground truth.​


P F Tinmore said:


> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021), the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

AND as our friend "rylah" has said, once recognition of Israel is given it becomes unconditional and irrevocable.  The recognition of a state may be express, understood, or implied without being stated.





Most Respectfully,
R

_Notes on current recognized boundaries_:

◈ *Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel* •​​◈ *Golan Heights Law* •​​◈ *Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace* (1979) •​​◈ *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I)*  (1993)​​◈ *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty* (1994) •​​◈ *Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II*) (1995) •​​◈ *Letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon* (2000) •​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.

Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You deny this - and so all I can do is tell you what happened.  (And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty.  I did not say they did.  They acquired control of the territory → the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne."  A “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty _(an international agreement concluded between States)_ is in force.  (Article 1 • *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*)
> 
> 
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> *SOURCE*:  *Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Arab Palestinians were NOT a signatory to the Treaty, they were NOT invited into the Treaty, and were NOT a state eligible to be a State which took part in the drawing up and adopting of the text of the treaty.  The Arab Palestinians were only to received the benefit that the Allied Powers agreed upon themselves as necessary.
> 
> I know that many cite Article 30 as distributing territory (new states).  But Article 30 only addresses "nationality."
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) covered the territories renounced by the Turkish Republic; that being Section I • Territorial Clauses.  Article 30 is found in Section II • Nationality.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) did not mention Palestine by name.  The territory of Palestine was covered under the Syria (Article 3); that being from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia.
> 
> Even if the Allied Powers had NOT partitioned any parcel of land between the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia, there would be NO Palestine as the Mandate defined it.  In fact, there would be NO nations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq.  And, Jerusalem would be its own Sanjak along with half the Sinai Desert (North Sinai) that would be included in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.  So again, there would be NO Palestine as we know it today, or even in 1922.
> 
> It was the strength and meaning the Allied Powers, as the Victors of The Great War (WWI), supported in the text of the Treaty that allowed the Allied Powers to determine the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne."


Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan. Are you trying to make a point here?


RoccoR said:


> (And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty.


They didn't. So then, whose sovereignty was it?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> AND as our friend "rylah" has said, once recognition of Israel is given it becomes *unconditional and irrevocable.* The recognition of a state may be express, understood, or implied without being stated.


Palestine was recognized as a state in the Treaty of Lausanne, by the League of Nations, Britain, the Mandate, the US, and by the UN in Resolution 181.

After its declaration of independence in 1948 it was recognized by five Arab League countries.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
Click to expand...

Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

You should have known that already.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),


Which boundaries are those?

You got maps?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you are emotionally attached to that falsehood. Show us the text in the Treaty of Lausanne where those “new states” are identified?

link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
Click to expand...

First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish. 
Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
Oh and, another nice duck !


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
Click to expand...

You got links?






						Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
					






					wwi.lib.byu.edu
				




“New states”?

Show us the magic. Where are those “new states” named?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND as our friend "rylah" has said, once recognition of Israel is given it becomes *unconditional and irrevocable.* The recognition of a state may be express, understood, or implied without being stated.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized as a state in the Treaty of Lausanne, by the League of Nations, Britain, the Mandate, the US, and by the UN in Resolution 181.
> 
> After its declaration of independence in 1948 it was recognized by five Arab League countries.
Click to expand...

What month did it declare independence in 1948? And if Palestine was already a country before 1948 why did they find it necessary to declare independence again?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
Click to expand...

The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that! 
Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...

The country of Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish.
> Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
> Oh and, another nice duck !
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is a question that I have been asking for years. That is when everyone starts dancing.


----------



## toastman

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country of Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


*waits for Tinmore to post unrelated link then claim that it backs up his statement. iOS”" the best app ever ever ppl I have


P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish.
> Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
> Oh and, another nice duck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is a question that I have been asking for years. That is when everyone starts dancing.
Click to expand...

Lololol! I literally just caught you ducking and dancing a few posts ago Tinmore. Let’s try again, maybe this time you won’t duck:
What set of rules must a country follow in order to declare independence . Provide a link. Oh, and I’m not talking about your set of imaginary rules .


----------



## toastman

Can someone answer this question: why does Tinmore NEVER provide links to his bullshit Palestinian lies, yet constantly ask everyone else to provide links when they have already done so countless times ?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...

So.... indeed, your claim that Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne was an obvious fraud. Indeed, there is nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne that supports such creation of a ''new state''.

So.... Lets move on to your claim that Syria was a ''new state'' created by the Treaty of Lausanne. 

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country of Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *waits for Tinmore to post unrelated link then claim that it backs up his statement. iOS”" the best app ever ever ppl I have
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish.
> Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
> Oh and, another nice duck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is a question that I have been asking for years. That is when everyone starts dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lololol! I literally just caught you ducking and dancing a few posts ago Tinmore. Let’s try again, maybe this time you won’t duck:
> What set of rules must a country follow in order to declare independence . Provide a link. Oh, and I’m not talking about your set of imaginary rules .
Click to expand...






__





						The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu
				




*ARTICLE 1​*​
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
Let's look at these.

*a ) a permanent population; *

Palestine's population dated back for untold centuries.

Israel's population consisted of recent colonial settlers.

* b ) a defined territory; *

Palestine has international borders that were defined by treaty.

Israel has never had a defined territory.

*c ) government;*

Palestine's government, under the tutelage of the Mandate, collected taxes, had police, (separate from the Mandate army) created law, issued passports and visas, etc..

Israel's government was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was imposed on Palestine, at the point of a gun, against the wishes of the majority of the people.

*d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*

Palestine signed on to international agreements including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. It engaged in international travel, trade, and tourism.

Israel also had relations with other states.

*ARTICLE 3​*​
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...​


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
Click to expand...

Still no maps?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country of Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *waits for Tinmore to post unrelated link then claim that it backs up his statement. iOS”" the best app ever ever ppl I have
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish.
> Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
> Oh and, another nice duck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is a question that I have been asking for years. That is when everyone starts dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lololol! I literally just caught you ducking and dancing a few posts ago Tinmore. Let’s try again, maybe this time you won’t duck:
> What set of rules must a country follow in order to declare independence . Provide a link. Oh, and I’m not talking about your set of imaginary rules .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*​
> ​
> ​The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
> Let's look at these.
> 
> *a ) a permanent population; *
> 
> Palestine's population dated back for untold centuries.
> 
> Israel's population consisted of recent colonial settlers.
> 
> * b ) a defined territory; *
> 
> Palestine has international borders that were defined by treaty.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> *c ) government;*
> 
> Palestine's government, under the tutelage of the Mandate, collected taxes, had police, (separate from the Mandate army) created law, issued passports and visas, etc..
> 
> Israel's government was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was imposed on Palestine, at the point of a gun, against the wishes of the majority of the people.
> 
> *d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> 
> Palestine signed on to international agreements including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. It engaged in international travel, trade, and tourism.
> 
> Israel also had relations with other states.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*​
> ​
> ​The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...​
Click to expand...

Israel has never had a Treaty establishing borders?

Indeed, you have been supplied with the text of those treaties so your usual denials / silly conspiracy theories suggest some deeper issues.

Oh, anything yet on your "new states invented by the Treaty of Lausanne" conspiracy theory?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
Click to expand...

Still no Pally State?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  I'm not sure what traction you expect from what map set.  You already have the Treaty Descriptions.  (See *Posting #1356*)



P F Tinmore said:


> Still no maps?


*(COMMENT)*

The Posting noted above, contains the LINKS to seven significant documents that delineate the international boundaries.  What is very striking is that I cannot find a single document that the Arab Palestinians are party to that outline or defines the territorial boundaries of the "State of Palestine."  





Most Respectfully,
R
*ATTACHMENTS:*
_____________________________________



SOURCE:  Israel
2010 Britannica Student Encyclopedia Copyright under International Copyright Union © 2010 by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp 168




Declassified:  Cease Fire Map 1948

Jewish Held Area
Jewish Controlled Area
Jewish Area as Accredited by UN GA Nov 1947



Plan of Partition • Armistice Agreements • Territories Occupied
UN Map Set 3242 May 1983




World Atlas
© Graphic Maps (.com)


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> 2010 Britannica Student Encyclopedia Copyright under International Copyright Union © 2010 by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp 168
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declassified: Cease Fire Map 1948


1948 map of *Palestine.*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Britannica Student Encyclopedia Copyright under International Copyright Union © 2010 by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp 168
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declassified: Cease Fire Map 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 map of *Palestine.*
Click to expand...

Portion of a map of Disneyland. 

Hey, was Disneyland made a "new state" by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the would be a 1949 Map of the situation planted over a 1947 Map Mandate for Palestine Map (Short Titled "Palestine").

Israel had not declared independence yet.  But the map tells you so much more.



RoccoR said:


> 2010 Britannica Student Encyclopedia Copyright under International Copyright Union © 2010 by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp 168





P F Tinmore said:


> 1948 map of *Palestine.*



You will go to any length to grasp a straw.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...

So, as we see, the claim that Lebanon and Syria were "new states" invented as a part of your Treaty of Lausanne conspiracy theory is false.

So, please identify where Iraq was a "new state" invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Iink?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.... indeed, your claim that Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne was an obvious fraud. Indeed, there is nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne that supports such creation of a ''new state''.
> 
> So.... Lets move on to your claim that Syria was a ''new state'' created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

How did you get so confused?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.... indeed, your claim that Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne was an obvious fraud. Indeed, there is nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne that supports such creation of a ''new state''.
> 
> So.... Lets move on to your claim that Syria was a ''new state'' created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you get so confused?
Click to expand...

How did you get your conspiracy theories so wrong?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.... indeed, your claim that Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne was an obvious fraud. Indeed, there is nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne that supports such creation of a ''new state''.
> 
> So.... Lets move on to your claim that Syria was a ''new state'' created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you get so confused?
Click to expand...

If Syria was a ''new state'' created by the Treaty of Lausanne, why wasn't that stated in the Treaty?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...

So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.

So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event. 

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.


I never said that. You are confused.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. You are confused.
Click to expand...

You’re forgetful. Maybe dishonest.

I’ll go with dishonest.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re forgetful. Maybe dishonest.
> 
> I’ll go with dishonest.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
Click to expand...


We seem to be at a point of diminishing options for evidence of the “new states” you claim were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.

let’s recap, shall we?

Q. Was Lebanon invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?
A. No.

Q. Were Syria, Iraq or Transjordan invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?
A. No.

That leaves us to examine your claim / conspiracy theory that the Magical Kingdom of Pally’land was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.
Q . Is the above true.
A. No.

The facts seem to contradict your conspiracy theories. Of course, you could provide some evidence to support your claims. You could, for example, provide a link to a specific citation where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, or Pal’istan were identified anywhere in the Treaty of Lausanne as being created / invented by that Treaty.

I’ll await your link usual shuffle off, sidestep, moon walk, deflection, etc.

link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re forgetful. Maybe dishonest.
> 
> I’ll go with dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are required to supply a link to identify where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Pal’istan were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.

If you forget what you are tasked with doing, refer back to this post.

If you forget where this post can be found, write it down so you don’t forget.

link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country of Lebanon was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *waits for Tinmore to post unrelated link then claim that it backs up his statement. iOS”" the best app ever ever ppl I have
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:    OK, what are you talking about.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Stop being so mysterious.  Because after June 1920 and before 1967,  I really don't see an example of an occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
> So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off , you didn’t answer anything I asked. I asked for a link, instead I got usual Tinmore jibberish.
> Speaking of territory, how can Israel be a sovereign state, part of the U.N and have internationally recognized borders if it does not have defined territory?
> Oh and, another nice duck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is a question that I have been asking for years. That is when everyone starts dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lololol! I literally just caught you ducking and dancing a few posts ago Tinmore. Let’s try again, maybe this time you won’t duck:
> What set of rules must a country follow in order to declare independence . Provide a link. Oh, and I’m not talking about your set of imaginary rules .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*​
> ​
> ​The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
> Let's look at these.
> 
> *a ) a permanent population; *
> 
> Palestine's population dated back for untold centuries.
> 
> Israel's population consisted of recent colonial settlers.
> 
> * b ) a defined territory; *
> 
> Palestine has international borders that were defined by treaty.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> *c ) government;*
> 
> Palestine's government, under the tutelage of the Mandate, collected taxes, had police, (separate from the Mandate army) created law, issued passports and visas, etc..
> 
> Israel's government was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was imposed on Palestine, at the point of a gun, against the wishes of the majority of the people.
> 
> *d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> 
> Palestine signed on to international agreements including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. It engaged in international travel, trade, and tourism.
> 
> Israel also had relations with other states.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*​
> ​
> ​The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...​
Click to expand...

Palestine does NOT have international borders. What treaties and with which countries? Links?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Britannica Student Encyclopedia Copyright under International Copyright Union © 2010 by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp 168
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declassified: Cease Fire Map 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 map of *Palestine.*
Click to expand...

Cool story. It’s now 2021 and Israel has defined territory and international boundaries that are INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED:
But here is the question you have been ducking forever: why is there NOTHING about any treaties and boundaries involving Palestine ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re forgetful. Maybe dishonest.
> 
> I’ll go with dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You are required to supply a link to identify where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Pal’istan were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> If you forget what you are tasked with doing, refer back to this post.
> 
> If you forget where this post can be found, write it down so you don’t forget.
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

I can't defend a position that I do not hold.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
Click to expand...

Maps of what? Israel? I have no idea what you are asking me. Any monkey can google Israel and find countless maps. But here’s something that I think you’ll like. You keep blabbing on about “defined territory”, but what is defined territory ? :
*Defined territory* – this refers to the *territory* over which control of the state is exercised, and which demarcates the state from its neighbours. ... Government – statehood requires the existence of a government in control of *territory* and population.

This could not be closer to the truth when it comes to Israel declaring independence . In an earlier post, you posted a link with the pre requisitions for statehood. Fact of the matter is, Israel has their shit together when the British left Palestine by forming a government that controlled its people the land they lived on. The “Palestinians” did not. Israel declared independence and formed a recognized state. The “Palestinians” tried doing that AFTER Israel did, but nothing happened. In other words, they should have thought about forming a country instead of declaring war. 
Crying, whining and attempting to rewrite history to a version that you feel SHOULD have happened is childish and pathetic and frankly, all you’re doing is making yourself look foolish after trying over and over again to deny facts that have been proven to you countless times with links.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maps of what? Israel? I have no idea what you are asking me. Any monkey can google Israel and find countless maps. But here’s something that I think you’ll like. You keep blabbing on about “defined territory”, but what is defined territory ? :
> *Defined territory* – this refers to the *territory* over which control of the state is exercised, and which demarcates the state from its neighbours. ... Government – statehood requires the existence of a government in control of *territory* and population.
> 
> This could not be closer to the truth when it comes to Israel declaring independence . In an earlier post, you posted a link with the pre requisitions for statehood. Fact of the matter is, Israel has their shit together when the British left Palestine by forming a government that controlled its people the land they lived on. The “Palestinians” did not. Israel declared independence and formed a recognized state. The “Palestinians” tried doing that AFTER Israel did, but nothing happened. In other words, they should have thought about forming a country instead of declaring war.
> Crying, whining and attempting to rewrite history to a version that you feel SHOULD have happened is childish and pathetic and frankly, all you’re doing is making yourself look foolish after trying over and over again to deny facts that have been proven to you countless times with links.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse occupation with sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.
> 
> Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> You should have known that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne. We've eliminated your first three; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Why you insist that those nations were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne is the stuff of some pretty careless, rudimentary lack of historical knowledge and some pretty silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> So, let's move on to Transjordan, certainly not invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. A way to support your claim would be to provide the text of the Treaty of Lausanne describing that event.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's revisit your claim about those ''new states'' you insist were created by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re forgetful. Maybe dishonest.
> 
> I’ll go with dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You are required to supply a link to identify where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Pal’istan were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> If you forget what you are tasked with doing, refer back to this post.
> 
> If you forget where this post can be found, write it down so you don’t forget.
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a position that I do not hold.
Click to expand...

Have you already forgotten the position you hold, or, perhaps changed your position when it can’t be defended?

So we’re still waiting for the names of those “new states” you claim were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maps of what? Israel? I have no idea what you are asking me. Any monkey can google Israel and find countless maps. But here’s something that I think you’ll like. You keep blabbing on about “defined territory”, but what is defined territory ? :
> *Defined territory* – this refers to the *territory* over which control of the state is exercised, and which demarcates the state from its neighbours. ... Government – statehood requires the existence of a government in control of *territory* and population.
> 
> This could not be closer to the truth when it comes to Israel declaring independence . In an earlier post, you posted a link with the pre requisitions for statehood. Fact of the matter is, Israel has their shit together when the British left Palestine by forming a government that controlled its people the land they lived on. The “Palestinians” did not. Israel declared independence and formed a recognized state. The “Palestinians” tried doing that AFTER Israel did, but nothing happened. In other words, they should have thought about forming a country instead of declaring war.
> Crying, whining and attempting to rewrite history to a version that you feel SHOULD have happened is childish and pathetic and frankly, all you’re doing is making yourself look foolish after trying over and over again to deny facts that have been proven to you countless times with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse occupation with sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Don’t confuse the Treaty of Lausanne with creation of any “new states”.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maps of what? Israel? I have no idea what you are asking me. Any monkey can google Israel and find countless maps. But here’s something that I think you’ll like. You keep blabbing on about “defined territory”, but what is defined territory ? :
> *Defined territory* – this refers to the *territory* over which control of the state is exercised, and which demarcates the state from its neighbours. ... Government – statehood requires the existence of a government in control of *territory* and population.
> 
> This could not be closer to the truth when it comes to Israel declaring independence . In an earlier post, you posted a link with the pre requisitions for statehood. Fact of the matter is, Israel has their shit together when the British left Palestine by forming a government that controlled its people the land they lived on. The “Palestinians” did not. Israel declared independence and formed a recognized state. The “Palestinians” tried doing that AFTER Israel did, but nothing happened. In other words, they should have thought about forming a country instead of declaring war.
> Crying, whining and attempting to rewrite history to a version that you feel SHOULD have happened is childish and pathetic and frankly, all you’re doing is making yourself look foolish after trying over and over again to deny facts that have been proven to you countless times with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse occupation with sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t confuse the Treaty of Lausanne with creation of any “new states”.
Click to expand...

You are the one beating that dead horse.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021),
> 
> 
> 
> Which boundaries are those?
> 
> You got maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundaries that are internationally recognized that came into existence through treaties . Treaties I may add, that did not involve the mythical state of Palestine . Also, why do you continually ask for maps and links ? We always post them, but then you just find some other reason to claim the link is not true: Rocco and I have posted COUNTLESS times links to prove Israel’s boundaries. The links clearly state : ISRAEL’s boundaries are so and so”. I mean, it doesn’t get more clearer than that!
> Israel does need you or your Palestinian buddies’ recognition for it to exist. Your childish denial does not simply erase Israel or its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED  BOUNDARIES .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no maps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maps of what? Israel? I have no idea what you are asking me. Any monkey can google Israel and find countless maps. But here’s something that I think you’ll like. You keep blabbing on about “defined territory”, but what is defined territory ? :
> *Defined territory* – this refers to the *territory* over which control of the state is exercised, and which demarcates the state from its neighbours. ... Government – statehood requires the existence of a government in control of *territory* and population.
> 
> This could not be closer to the truth when it comes to Israel declaring independence . In an earlier post, you posted a link with the pre requisitions for statehood. Fact of the matter is, Israel has their shit together when the British left Palestine by forming a government that controlled its people the land they lived on. The “Palestinians” did not. Israel declared independence and formed a recognized state. The “Palestinians” tried doing that AFTER Israel did, but nothing happened. In other words, they should have thought about forming a country instead of declaring war.
> Crying, whining and attempting to rewrite history to a version that you feel SHOULD have happened is childish and pathetic and frankly, all you’re doing is making yourself look foolish after trying over and over again to deny facts that have been proven to you countless times with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse occupation with sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t confuse the Treaty of Lausanne with creation of any “new states”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one beating that dead horse.
Click to expand...

Your nonsense claim that the Treaty of Lausanne created any number of "new states" is not just a dead horse but has joined _eohippus_ as a Montanan fossil.

If the Treaty of Lausanne invented Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Pal’Istan, why is that not identified in the Treaty?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  The Treaty of Lausanne, technically, did not create any new countries. And our friend P F Tinmore knows this.



Hollie said:


> Your nonsense claim that the Treaty of Lausanne created any number of "new states" is not just a dead horse but has joined _eohippus_ as a Montanan fossil.
> 
> If the Treaty of Lausanne invented Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Pal’Istan, why is that not identified in the Treaty?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

*◈ Lebanon* was released from the French Mandate and became independent in November 1943.  It was a carve-out from the old Beirut Vilayet.  Much the same as Jordan was a carve-out from the Vilayet of Syria and later the Mandate for Palestine Territory.​​*◈ Syria* was released from the French Mandate in April 1946 and became independent.  Syrian demarcations were originally set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*"  But the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britain Treaty #564 - the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920 *after decisions were made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920)*.*​​*◈ Iraq* was released from the British Mandate in 1932 and became independent.​​And, of course we know that:​​*◈ Jordan* was released from the British Mandate in May 1946 and became independent.​​◈. Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.​
The Treaty of Lausanne was a very important piece of history.  And it created the conditions for each of these new countries to emerge.
​


​
​
As if this has not been outline in many of our previous discussions.  To keep harping on the notion that the Arab Palestinians were allotted some special privilege by the Treaty of Lausanne is simply incorrect.  The Arab Palestinians were not mentioned by name in a Treaty until the much more recent  *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty* (1994) and *Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace* (1979).  In those cases, the international boundaries were set without prejudice to the Arab Palestines of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  But these two agreement were set between Egypt and Jordan with Israel (respectively).  It was not an obligation to the Arab Palestinians.

No matter what the Arab Palestinians might make from the Treaty of Lausanne, relative to the Mandate for Palestine, the current boundaries are set by the central agreements made note of in *Posting #631 *and more recently *Posting #1356*.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈. Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.


It is my understanding that the new states  were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers. I don't recall such a treaty with Israel.

Could you clarify that for me?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈. Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that the new states  were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers. I don't recall such a treaty with Israel.
> 
> Could you clarify that for me?
Click to expand...

If you could provide a number identifying how many more times you need clarification... to clarify what has already been clarified for you... in excruciating detail.... that would be helpful. 

Or, is all this really about your need to spam the thread?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: WOW!  you are really reaching for it.  There is no condition in which a treaty is required, although they can be helpful.



RoccoR said:


> ◈  Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.





P F Tinmore said:


> It is my understanding that the new states  were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers. I don't recall such a treaty with Israel.
> Could you clarify that for me?


*(COMMENT)*

The UN does NOT make Treaties with states, because under Treaty Law:

*Treaty Law*​"Treaty" means an international agreement *concluded between States* in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;​​It was the "recommendation" that:  "A *declaration shall be made* to the United Nations by the provisional government of each proposed State before independence."   [*Part I, Section "C", A/RES/181 (II)*]




​This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [*Para 1 • A/RES/49/148*]




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈. Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that the new states  were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers. I don't recall such a treaty with Israel.
> 
> Could you clarify that for me?
Click to expand...

What "new states"?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
> ⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: WOW!  you are really reaching for it.  There is no condition in which a treaty is required, although they can be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈  Israel was released from the British Mandate and became independent in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that the new states  were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers. I don't recall such a treaty with Israel.
> Could you clarify that for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UN does NOT make Treaties with states, because under Treaty Law:
> 
> *Treaty Law*​"Treaty" means an international agreement *concluded between States* in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;​​It was the "recommendation" that:  "A *declaration shall be made* to the United Nations by the provisional government of each proposed State before independence."   [*Part I, Section "C", A/RES/181 (II)*]
> 
> View attachment 480185​This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [*Para 1 • A/RES/49/148*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,


RoccoR said:


> *BLUF*: WOW!  you are really reaching for it.  There is no condition in which a treaty is required, although they can be helpful.
> 
> This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [_Para 1 • A/RES/49/148_]





P F Tinmore said:


> That wasn't the question.


It is my understanding that the new states were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers.
*(COMMENT)

FIRST*
I answered the question:  Your understanding is wrong.  You will not find any Customary or International Law that supports "your understanding."

*SECOND*
While all the other carve-outs were release by the Mandate, Israel was released from trusteeship through intent and without objection.

*THIRD*
Not all the Mandates survived WWII.  In the case of Lebanon, the French considered Lebanon to be an autonomous province with provision statehood since August 1920.  The Vichy Government controlled Lebanon through WWII.  The French-Lebonesee Treaty of Independence and Friendship (1936) was never ratified.  The Vichy Government came to power and remained the authority until British Forces Liberated Lebanon and drove them from power.  It was only then that the Free French Forces released Lebanon, without formality.  However, even though Lebanon and Syria were covered by the same Mandate, Sryia was a different matter.  The Vienot Accords with Syria also recognized two autonomous regions (Druze and Alawite).  Once the French withdrew, Sryia became the embryonic seed of thee unstable governance that we see today.





​
It is almost as bad as Yemen.  Syrian Refugees are a steady trickle into the Hezbollah Controlled al-Bekaa Valley.  While Beirut claims sovereignty, the real power is in the hands of the Hezbollah as was demonstrated when the outspoken Lebanese activist and writer Lokman Slim was murdered.

Oddly enough, the only government in the entire picture to stabilize and prosper after the 1949 Ceasefire is the one that all the shaky and unstable governments criticize:  Israel _(no internal/domestic strife)_.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
> ⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BLUF*: WOW!  you are really reaching for it.  There is no condition in which a treaty is required, although they can be helpful.
> 
> This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [_Para 1 • A/RES/49/148_]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is my understanding that the new states were released from mandate and became independent by treaty with the mandate powers.
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> FIRST*
> I answered the question:  Your understanding is wrong.  You will not find any Customary or International Law that supports "your understanding."
> 
> *SECOND*
> While all the other carve-outs were release by the Mandate, Israel was released from trusteeship through intent and without objection.
> 
> *THIRD*
> Not all the Mandates survived WWII.  In the case of Lebanon, the French considered Lebanon to be an autonomous province with provision statehood since August 1920.  The Vichy Government controlled Lebanon through WWII.  The French-Lebonesee Treaty of Independence and Friendship (1936) was never ratified.  The Vichy Government came to power and remained the authority until British Forces Liberated Lebanon and drove them from power.  It was only then that the Free French Forces released Lebanon, without formality.  However, even though Lebanon and Syria were covered by the same Mandate, Sryia was a different matter.  The Vienot Accords with Syria also recognized two autonomous regions (Druze and Alawite).  Once the French withdrew, Sryia became the embryonic seed of thee unstable governance that we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 480230​
> It is almost as bad as Yemen.  Syrian Refugees are a steady trickle into the Hezbollah Controlled al-Bekaa Valley.  While Beirut claims sovereignty, the real power is in the hands of the Hezbollah as was demonstrated when the outspoken Lebanese activist and writer Lokman Slim was murdered.
> 
> Oddly enough, the only government in the entire picture to stabilize and prosper after the 1949 Ceasefire is the one that all the shaky and unstable governments criticize:  Israel _(no internal/domestic strife)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [_Para 1 • A/RES/49/148_]



This defines Palestine.
Welcoming the progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence, 

Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of an increasing number of sovereign peoples and nations,

Expressing grave concern that, as a consequence of the persistence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons, and emphasizing the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition,​
 You have never explained how foreign colonial settlers can have the right to self determination at the expense of the native population.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> You have never explained how foreign colonial settlers can have the right to self determination at the expense of the native population.



Since that is exactly what you're promoting here,
maybe you explain that to us?

Why do you think Arabs deserve exclusive domination over the entire Middle East,
at the expense of those native populations?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians. I call your attention to the fact that A/RES/49/148 was written after the Oslo Peace Accords when the designations of Areas "A" •  "B" and "C" were agreed upon. It was not directed at the post-1967 Conflict could have been written to describe the any of the on-going International Armed Conflicts (IAC):

◈. Somali Civil War​◈. Bosnian War​◈. Iraqi Kurdish Civil War​◈. Armenian-Azerbaijani border conflict​◈. First Chechen War​◈. Cenepa War​
In fact, A/RES/49/148 is generic and allies as the title implies → "universally."




RoccoR said:


> This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [_Para 1 • A/RES/49/148_]


[/quote]


P F Tinmore said:


> This defines Palestine.





P F Tinmore said:


> Welcoming the progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence,​



*(COMMENT)*

It applies equally well to the attempt by foreign forces of the Arab League attempt to intervene in the establishment of Israel and the foreign occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
​


P F Tinmore said:


> Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of an increasing number of sovereign peoples and nations,​


*(COMMENT)*

That could very well apply to the continued (1948 → continued through 1995) threats by the various terrorist organizations to destroy Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> Expressing grave concern that, as a consequence of the persistence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons, and emphasizing the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition,​


*(COMMENT)*

The 1967 was actually a continuation of the 1948 War since the Armistice agreements were still in force.   The Six-Day War, now more then a half-century behind us in history, is a conflict where each side points at the other and blames them.  BUT, the conflict really doesn't change the outcome.  And let's not forget that the Arab League tried for a second time to invade Israeli controlled territory and sovereignty, to challenges the territorial integrity.

The wars are over.  Instead of danger in every direction, there are agreements and new beginnings in every direction.  The Arab Palestinians have, pretty much, lost their bid and are trying to incite conflict as a means to bolster their cause.

The "displaced persons" situation is what it is.  As long as their is and endless stream of annual funding for the  UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), there will be a unique definition for refugees in the Region.  Until the elimination of the UNRWA, there will always be a growing population of refugees, instead of diminishing numbers.

Those displaced persons that once had Jordanian citizenship or are claimed as the defined population for the State of Palestine are accounted for and removed from the roster of refugees, we will never really grasp the true magnitude of the problem.

Arab Palestinians that are citizens of the State of Palestine cannot really justify their status as a refugee.




P F Tinmore said:


> You have never explained how foreign colonial settlers can have the right to self determination at the expense of the native population.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, you are wrong here.  I have explained it.  The Allied Powers facilitated immigration and settlement for the purpose of reconstructing the Jewish National Home.

Turkey renounced all rights and title over the territory under discussion. By treaty, the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned was determined by the Allied Powers.

Self-Determination is defined as inclusive of all people.  Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians don't like them.  Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians did not get what they wanted under the threat of violence.

Finally, right or wrong, Israel is formed.  Whether it is the Arab Palestinians or the International Courts that want to force a change to the territorial integrity and threaten the peace, well they will have to pay for the consequences.  But remember, All Members (of the UN) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians. I call your attention to the fact that A/RES/49/148 was written after the Oslo Peace Accords when the designations of Areas "A" •  "B" and "C" were agreed upon. It was not directed at the post-1967 Conflict could have been written to describe the any of the on-going International Armed Conflicts (IAC):
> 
> ◈. Somali Civil War​◈. Bosnian War​◈. Iraqi Kurdish Civil War​◈. Armenian-Azerbaijani border conflict​◈. First Chechen War​◈. Cenepa War​
> In fact, A/RES/49/148 is generic and allies as the title implies → "universally."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an example of an automous government making itself known (Self-Determination). [_Para 1 • A/RES/49/148_]
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> This defines Palestine.





P F Tinmore said:


> Welcoming the progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence,​


*(COMMENT)*

It applies equally well to the attempt by foreign forces of the Arab League attempt to intervene in the establishment of Israel and the foreign occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
​


P F Tinmore said:


> Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of an increasing number of sovereign peoples and nations,​


*(COMMENT)*

That could very well apply to the continued (1948 → continued through 1995) threats by the various terrorist organizations to destroy Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> Expressing grave concern that, as a consequence of the persistence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons, and emphasizing the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition,​


*(COMMENT)*

The 1967 was actually a continuation of the 1948 War since the Armistice agreements were still in force.   The Six-Day War, now more then a half-century behind us in history, is a conflict where each side points at the other and blames them.  BUT, the conflict really doesn't change the outcome.  And let's not forget that the Arab League tried for a second time to invade Israeli controlled territory and sovereignty, to challenges the territorial integrity.

*The wars are over.  Instead of danger in every direction, there are agreements and new beginnings in every direction.  The Arab Palestinians have, pretty much, lost their bid and are trying to incite conflict as a means to bolster their cause.*

The "displaced persons" situation is what it is.  As long as their is and endless stream of annual funding for the  UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), there will be a unique definition for refugees in the Region.  Until the elimination of the UNRWA, there will always be a growing population of refugees, instead of diminishing numbers.

Those displaced persons that once had Jordanian citizenship or are claimed as the defined population for the State of Palestine are accounted for and removed from the roster of refugees, we will never really grasp the true magnitude of the problem.

Arab Palestinians that are citizens of the State of Palestine cannot really justify their status as a refugee.




P F Tinmore said:


> You have never explained how foreign colonial settlers can have the right to self determination at the expense of the native population.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, you are wrong here.  I have explained it.  The Allied Powers facilitated immigration and settlement for the purpose of reconstructing the Jewish National Home.

Turkey renounced all rights and title over the territory under discussion. By treaty, the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned was determined by the Allied Powers.

Self-Determination is defined as inclusive of all people.  Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians don't like them.  Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians did not get what they wanted under the threat of violence.

Finally, right or wrong, Israel is formed.  Whether it is the Arab Palestinians or the International Courts that want to force a change to the territorial integrity and threaten the peace, well they will have to pay for the consequences.  But remember, All Members (of the UN) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.






Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]
The bolded underlined part is extremely true and it is something I have been trying to put in to words for a while but could not. Thanks Rocco !!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And let's not forget that the Arab League tried for a second time to invade Israeli controlled territory and sovereignty, to challenges the territorial integrity.


You keep saying that like Israel has territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Arab Palestinians that are citizens of the State of Palestine cannot really justify their status as a refugee.


Then why do they all need to carry foreign IDs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> The 1967 was actually a continuation of the 1948 War since the Armistice agreements were still in force.


The 1948 war was a different war than the Nakba.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians don't like them.


That wasn't the point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget that the Arab League tried for a second time to invade Israeli controlled territory and sovereignty, to challenges the territorial integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like Israel has territory.
Click to expand...

You keep agonizing over the fact that Israel has borders, territorial integrity and a modern, high tech society. The Pally's don't. That causes you such angst, envy and misdirected hate at the Israelis. 

Take responsibility for your failures.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Why do you think Arabs deserve exclusive domination over the entire Middle East,


The new states were given to the people who lived there. Race, religion, etc. were not an issue.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians.


Why would it not apply to them? Why are they an exception to the norm?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think Arabs deserve exclusive domination over the entire Middle East,
> 
> 
> 
> The new states were given to the people who lived there. Race, religion, etc. were not an issue.
Click to expand...

Ah. The ''new states'', slogan. Odd that you can't identify these ''new states''. If, as you claim, the Treaty of Lausanne invented ''new states'', could you identify in that Treaty where those ''new states'' are named? What are the names of those ''new states'' invented by the Treaty of Lausanne? How is it that the Treaty of Lausanne was tasked with giving people ''new states''?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think Arabs deserve exclusive domination over the entire Middle East,
> 
> 
> 
> The new states were given to the people who lived there. Race, religion, etc. were not an issue.
Click to expand...

Your usual sidestep and deflection with an emoticon. 

So, we can agree your ''new states'' slogan is nonsense and the Treaty of Lausanne never gave any ''new states'' to anyone?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

*BLUF*: No matter what you may say here, in this Discussion Group, it does not alter the absolute ground truth or the reality that exist today.  The international demarcation *(for sovereign borders)* of Israel is demonstrated by the physical barriers or border landmarks and markings of Israel's sovereign control → on the ground.



toastman said:


> Self-Determination does not exclude some people because the Arab Palestinians don't like them.





P F Tinmore said:


> That wasn't the point.


*(COMMENT)*

OH yes it was.  You have been harping for "Years" about a convincing map as proof, or some unimpeachable document, that stipulates where Israeli sovereignty is outlined.  Well, the fact of the matter is, that is totally unnecessary.  But the State of Palestine has no supporting documentation on a border arrangement in which they are a party except for the Oslo Accords.  Israel actually has arrangement in which they are a party.



RoccoR said:


> And let's not forget that the Arab League tried for a second time to invade Israeli controlled territory and sovereignty, to challenges the territorial integrity.





P F Tinmore said:


> You keep saying that like Israel has territory.


*(COMMENT)*

The political existence of the Israel is independent of recognition by opposing Arab Palestinians.  Israel has the necessary defined territory.  In fact, every single day, Israel defends that border.  And even any Gaza knows where Israel begins because they try to penetrate on a frequent basis.



P F Tinmore said:


> You keep saying that like Israel has territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Every Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Every Arab Palestinian likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. 

In cases of disrespect, Israel has the responsibility to defend the nation or take such actions as may be required to neutralize 
the threat or use of force against Israeli territorial integrity or Israeli political independence.



RoccoR said:


> Arab Palestinians that are citizens of the State of Palestine cannot really justify their status as a refugee.





P F Tinmore said:


> Then why do they all need to carry foreign IDs.


*(COMMENT)*

When I travelled to any country in Europe or the Far East, I must be able to present the agreed upon Identification.  In many countries I had to obtain _(or in some cases purchase upon entry or departure)_.  When I entered Kuwait, I had to buy a Visa at the border.  When I entered or departed Jordan, I had to purchase the corresponding entry and exit stamps or papers.  The people in The Gaza Strip have no foreign identification requirement.  The people that stay in Area "A" in the West Bank have no requirement for foreign identification.  But if an Arab Palestinian transits a territorial control point _(Areas "B" and "C" where Israel controls security)_ or a border crossing.

There are all sorts of identification requirements.  In my experience, I have had to present health insurance card to receive an entry permit into some countries. And these days your health insurance must cover the coronavirus.  Although I have not yet been required to show it, I do have a VA Issued shot record for the COVID-19 vaccination.

When the State of Palestine cannot generate the appropriate kind of Identification, travel documents or passports, the _Palestinian Center_ can offer some advice.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel has the necessary defined territory. In fact, every single day, Israel defends that border.


A line of goons with guns does not make an international border.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The people in The Gaza Strip have no foreign identification requirement.


Israel still controls the population registry in Gaza and Israeli IDs are required.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In fact, every single day, Israel defends that border. And even any Gaza knows where Israel begins because they try to penetrate on a frequent basis.


There is no border around Gaza. That is just Israel's cage.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> A line of goons with guns does not make an international border.


You had a revelation?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> There is no border around Gaza.


Not one of the “new states” created by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

pf hope you post these two items on the 9/11 thread,im tired of wasting my time on those idiots fools.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

BLUF:  This is something I did not say or imply.  The "Right of Self-Determination" is almost always competitive in its application.  The "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by one group cannot be implemented in such a way as to interfere with the "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by another group; except by mutual agreement.



RoccoR said:


> You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians.





P F Tinmore said:


> Why would it not apply to them? Why are they an exception to the norm?


*(COMMENT)*

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the same "right" as the"Israeli."  But as stated in the BLUF, supra, the Arab Palestinians cannot come along after the fact and try to usurp the already implemented "right" of the Israeli.

I have the right to walk down the path.  But I do not have the "right" to push the Palestinians off the path.  My "right" does not interfere with the right of the Palestinian.

This becomes especially important when we look at the history _(post-San Remo Convention 1920)_ of inviting the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions, which the rejected a half-dozen times.

How many times did the Arab Palestinians reject participation in the post-War programs?  Did the Arab Palestinians reject the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission on the matter of creating an Arab State?






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> There is no border around Gaza.





Hollie said:


> Not one of the “new states” created by the Treaty of Lausanne?


*(COMMENT)*

Now that is a great example of denying reality.



			
				DENIAL OF REALITY said:
			
		

> The unconscious defense mechanism of denying the existence of painful facts.This technique enables an individual to escape from intolerable thoughts, wishes, actions, or events and the anxiety which they produce. In denying their existence he is not lying or malingering, nor does he deliberately repudiate the ideas or consciously dismiss them from mind. He simply fails to perceive that they exist.
> *SOURCE*:







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> BLUF:  This is something I did not say or imply.  The "Right of Self-Determination" is almost always competitive in its application.  The "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by one group cannot be implemented in such a way as to interfere with the "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by another group; except by mutual agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it not apply to them? Why are they an exception to the norm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians have the same "right" as the"Israeli."  But as stated in the BLUF, supra, the Arab Palestinians cannot come along after the fact and try to usurp the already implemented "right" of the Israeli.
> 
> I have the right to walk down the path.  But I do not have the "right" to push the Palestinians off the path.  My "right" does not interfere with the right of the Palestinian.
> 
> This becomes especially important when we look at the history _(post-San Remo Convention 1920)_ of inviting the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions, which the rejected a half-dozen times.
> 
> How many times did the Arab Palestinians reject participation in the post-War programs?  Did the Arab Palestinians reject the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission on the matter of creating an Arab State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Everything offered to the Palestinians, then and now, require them to surrender.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

Today, the Arab Palestinians have more sovereignty _(self-governing territory)_ then they have had in the last thousand years.  The only loss of sovereignty they have suffered → is that which they rejected.

*sur-ren-der* /sa'rendar/ v.  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority:  give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demandy.



P F Tinmore said:


> Everything offered to the Palestinians, then and now, require them to surrender.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians surrender nothing.  It was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (in this specific case) that essentially surrendered territory outside Turkey.  

The Arab Palestinians  surrendered nothing.  It first must have been theirs before they could surrender it.  It was never theirs to begin with.  This "surrender" business it nothing more then a false rationalization to imply some sovereign right.  Sovereignty is NOT a "right."  The government either supreme power or authority over the territory, for which no other state can claim or supersede, OR it is not a true self-governing territory.

The Arab Palestinians cannot claim to have had a government based on autonomous of self-governing rule in the Region for a thousand years.  And during the 20th Century, the central authority all the land east of the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Frontier underwent major changes.  



​The idea that the Arab Palestinians have some extraordinary claim to any of the territory that the Allied Powers designated as subject to the Mandate for Palestine is simply unsubstantiated.


			
				Article 16 said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> *SOURCE*:  *VOX Maps • **Treaty of Lausanne*








Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians surrendered nothing. It first must have been theirs before they could surrender it.


There you go again. You are back to Israel's BS talking point that there was no Palestine.

Why do you carry water for Israel?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians surrendered nothing. It first must have been theirs before they could surrender it.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. You are back to Israel's BS talking point that there was no Palestine.
> 
> Why do you carry water for Israel?
Click to expand...

Why do you carry water and spread lies about Palestine ? What do you get out of it ? Palestine was never a country and there’s nothing you can do or say to prove otherwise . Making up history will not alter this fact


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> BLUF:  This is something I did not say or imply.  The "Right of Self-Determination" is almost always competitive in its application.  The "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by one group cannot be implemented in such a way as to interfere with the "freedom" of Self-Determination applied by another group; except by mutual agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading the "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" as if it uniquely applied to the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it not apply to them? Why are they an exception to the norm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians have the same "right" as the"Israeli."  But as stated in the BLUF, supra, the Arab Palestinians cannot come along after the fact and try to usurp the already implemented "right" of the Israeli.
> 
> I have the right to walk down the path.  But I do not have the "right" to push the Palestinians off the path.  My "right" does not interfere with the right of the Palestinian.
> 
> This becomes especially important when we look at the history _(post-San Remo Convention 1920)_ of inviting the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions, which the rejected a half-dozen times.
> 
> How many times did the Arab Palestinians reject participation in the post-War programs?  Did the Arab Palestinians reject the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission on the matter of creating an Arab State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything offered to the Palestinians, then and now, require them to surrender.
Click to expand...

Such silly melodrama.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition & Independence
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF*:  To my knowledge, there is no official Israeli Government Agency in the Gaza Strip.  Are you saying this is wrong?  -  or  -  Are you talking about the Border Control Offices on the Israeli side.



RoccoR said:


> The people in The Gaza Strip have no foreign identification requirement.





P F Tinmore said:


> Israel still controls the population registry in Gaza and Israeli IDs are required.


*(COMMENT)*

I think you are correct in that if you want to transit into or across Israel, you have to have valid documentation.

But in 2005, I believe all Israeli government functions ended inside the Gaza Strip.  HAMAS does not require Israeli documentation _(__to the best of my knowledge__)_.

I'm surprised?  Totally!  What Israeli Documentation does HAMAS require?





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> - or - Are you talking about the Border Control Offices on the Israeli side.


Israel has Border Control Offices but there is no border.    

You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I'm surprised? Totally! What Israeli Documentation does HAMAS require?


It doesn't matter. Israel controls everything.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Border Crossings
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I simply do not know what in the hell you might be taking about.  See the Ground Truth!



RoccoR said:


> - or - Are you talking about the Border Control Offices on the Israeli side.





P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has Border Control Offices but there is no border.
> You can't make this stuff up.


*(COMMENT)*

It is my understanding that there exists:

◈  Three Border Crossings between Israel and Jordan: ​​✦  Yitzhak Rabin Terminal/Wadi Araba Crossing, ​✦  King Hussein Bridge (Allenby) Terminal​✦  Jordan River/Sheikh Hussein Crossing.​​◈  Two main crossing points on the Israel and Gaza Border: ​​✦  Erez Crossing​✦  Karni Crossing ​
And the MOI Immigration and Border Authority have numerous other crossing points:

◈  Between Israel and Lebanon​✦ _Rosh Hanikra_​◈  Between Israel and Syria​✦  _Quneitra_​◈  Marine and Port Border control services​◈  Airport Traffic Border control services ​
I just cannot imagine how you must sound to an Israeli or Arab Palestinians that use these points:

◈  UN personnel, students, clerics, and other populations belonging to the Druze community in the Golan Heights​◈  Authorized foreign workers and tourist traffic and those engaged in archeology, anthropology programs​◈  Those involved in mineral and geological survey services and other academic pursuits​◈  Docking commercial sea vessels, passenger ships, private yachts and the shipyard activity​◈  International Flights and Emergency Service, and diplomatic movements as necessary​◈  etc (_all the things I forgot to mention_)​​Now I've already mentioned the primary documents that address the essential International Borders and Boundaries, so your thoughts on the matter is getting less valid by the minute.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Border Crossings
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I simply do not know what in the hell you might be taking about.  See the Ground Truth!
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> - or - Are you talking about the Border Control Offices on the Israeli side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has Border Control Offices but there is no border.
> You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is my understanding that there exists:
> 
> ◈  Three Border Crossings between Israel and Jordan: ​​✦  Yitzhak Rabin Terminal/Wadi Araba Crossing, ​✦  King Hussein Bridge (Allenby) Terminal​✦  Jordan River/Sheikh Hussein Crossing.​​◈  Two main crossing points on the Israel and Gaza Border: ​​✦  Erez Crossing​✦  Karni Crossing ​
> And the MOI Immigration and Border Authority have numerous other crossing points:
> 
> ◈  Between Israel and Lebanon​✦ _Rosh Hanikra_​◈  Between Israel and Syria​✦  _Quneitra_​◈  Marine and Port Border control services​◈  Airport Traffic Border control services ​
> I just cannot imagine how you must sound to an Israeli or Arab Palestinians that use these points:
> 
> ◈  UN personnel, students, clerics, and other populations belonging to the Druze community in the Golan Heights​◈  Authorized foreign workers and tourist traffic and those engaged in archeology, anthropology programs​◈  Those involved in mineral and geological survey services and other academic pursuits​◈  Docking commercial sea vessels, passenger ships, private yachts and the shipyard activity​◈  International Flights and Emergency Service, and diplomatic movements as necessary​◈  etc (_all the things I forgot to mention_)​​Now I've already mentioned the primary documents that address the essential International Borders and Boundaries, so your thoughts on the matter is getting less valid by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, you listed checkpoints. Checkpoints can be anywhere.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Border Crossings
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I simply do not know what in the hell you might be taking about.  See the Ground Truth!
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> - or - Are you talking about the Border Control Offices on the Israeli side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has Border Control Offices but there is no border.
> You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is my understanding that there exists:
> 
> ◈  Three Border Crossings between Israel and Jordan: ​​✦  Yitzhak Rabin Terminal/Wadi Araba Crossing, ​✦  King Hussein Bridge (Allenby) Terminal​✦  Jordan River/Sheikh Hussein Crossing.​​◈  Two main crossing points on the Israel and Gaza Border: ​​✦  Erez Crossing​✦  Karni Crossing ​
> And the MOI Immigration and Border Authority have numerous other crossing points:
> 
> ◈  Between Israel and Lebanon​✦ _Rosh Hanikra_​◈  Between Israel and Syria​✦  _Quneitra_​◈  Marine and Port Border control services​◈  Airport Traffic Border control services ​
> I just cannot imagine how you must sound to an Israeli or Arab Palestinians that use these points:
> 
> ◈  UN personnel, students, clerics, and other populations belonging to the Druze community in the Golan Heights​◈  Authorized foreign workers and tourist traffic and those engaged in archeology, anthropology programs​◈  Those involved in mineral and geological survey services and other academic pursuits​◈  Docking commercial sea vessels, passenger ships, private yachts and the shipyard activity​◈  International Flights and Emergency Service, and diplomatic movements as necessary​◈  etc (_all the things I forgot to mention_)​​Now I've already mentioned the primary documents that address the essential International Borders and Boundaries, so your thoughts on the matter is getting less valid by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you listed checkpoints. Checkpoints can be anywhere.
Click to expand...

Checkpoints are required with hostile, dangerous Islamic terrorists who wish to do you harm.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It doesn't matter. Israel controls everything.


You poor, dear.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Border Crossings
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:   See the Ground Truth!



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, you listed checkpoints. Checkpoints can be anywhere.


*(COMMENT)*

Not one of these is a standard Security Check Point...

These are *Border Crossing* points...

For instance The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on 26 October 1994, at the southern *Border Crossing* of Wadi ‘Araba.

The *Treaty Annex I* deals with the Israel-Jordan International Boundary Delimitation and Demarcation. The Emek Ha'arava/Wadi Araba area of the International  land boundary shall be demarcated, under a joint boundary demarcation procedure, by boundary pillars which will be jointly located, erected, measured and documented on the basis of the boundary shown in the 1:20,000 orthophoto maps referred to in Article 2-C-(1) above. Between each two adjacent boundary pillars the boundary line shall follow a straight line.

There is no question about the boundary if you are on the ground and looking at it.





This is what the Border Crossing looks like from the Jordanian side.  It is impossible to mistake it from a security checkpoint.​




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Comedy gold. Islamic terrorist dictators ruling mini-caliphates are going to relinquish their rule and control of the UNRWA welfare fraud money?

Give us the definition of _taqiyya. _


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Women's Rights In Islam by Linda Sarsour*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Vivien Sansour: Seeking Seeds, Sourcing Resilience (March 18, 2021)*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Vivien Sansour: Seeking Seeds, Sourcing Resilience (March 18, 2021)*




_Seeking__ for seeds_ is the correct word indeed,
but how many can actually pronounce _*'P-alestine'*_?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Women's Rights In Islam by Linda Sarsour*



Like when they proselytize everywhere saying "Islam is the liberator of slaves",
when in reality Muslims have enslaved ten times the number of Africans
than the entire Western world combined?









						Elder: Black History Month: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade in Africa?
					

As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:




					www.standard.net


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Glory to God in the Lowest:  Journey to an Unholy Land - Don Wagner*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper*



Arabs-Moslems have little regard for democratic institutions.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: One State Solution (Democracy)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: What most people overlook is that in the proposal for the development of any government administrative model, there is more than one model that supports any political Decision Support System (DSS).  
​◈   Representative democracy is a system where citizens choose government representatives among their citizens.​◈   Direct democracy is when the citizens form a governing body and vote directly on issues.​◈   A constitutional democracy limits the powers of government through the nation's constitution.​
The characteristics of a democracy are:

◈  elections used to replace the government​◈  human rights for people​◈  participation by citizens in DSS​◈  equality under the law​



P F Tinmore said:


> *One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper*


*(COMMENT)*

And here is the fatal flaw in the "One Democratic State" presentation by *Dr Farsakh* and *Dr Halper*.  That would be the adverse political and economic impact such an incorporation ignite.  None of the neighboring nations are democracies.

◈  Lebanon parliamentary republic​◈  Syria is a _presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime_​_◈  Jordan is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy_​_◈  Egypt is a presidential republic_​_◈  Turkey is a presidential republic_​_◈  Saudi Arabia is a absolute monarchy_​
† Human Development Scale (*ANNEX TABLE A7.1, Human Development Index HDI*)​
This idea of a one-state democracy from the river to the sea is really a regime change, with Israel being a parliamentary democracy and both the Gaza Strip and the Ramallah Government being a truant government _(a failed state supporting terrorism)_ that would collapse if it were not for the donor contributions and indirect UNRWA umbilical support.  It only carries the outward appearance of an entity of a government.  But in reality cannot perform the routine duties of a government.  It has an executive leadership that openly skims the donor contributions as supplemental income to support their life style and rewards the terrorist ad their families for their unlawful activities.

I don't know that there is actually a name for such an entity that pretends to be a state.  What I do foresee is that it would, if emerged with a fictional state, be likely to terminally infect a functional government.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The characteristics of a democracy are:
> 
> ◈ elections used to replace the government◈ human rights for people◈ participation by citizens in DSS◈ equality under the law











						2003 Amended Basic Law
					

2003 Amended Basic Law The Amended Basic Law. Ramallah: 2003. Bir Zeit Institute of Law: The Palestinian Legal and Judicial System “al-Muqtafi”. accessed 13 December 2007. Issued in Ram…




					www.palestinianbasiclaw.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The characteristics of a democracy are:
> 
> ◈ elections used to replace the government◈ human rights for people◈ participation by citizens in DSS◈ equality under the law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Amended Basic Law. Ramallah: 2003. Bir Zeit Institute of Law: The Palestinian Legal and Judicial System “al-Muqtafi”. accessed 13 December 2007. Issued in Ram…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.palestinianbasiclaw.org
Click to expand...

You forgot to include the religious obligation of gee-had as a means to perpetuate hatreds for a competing faith that date back to the 7th century.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I don't know that there is actually a name for such an entity that pretends to be a state.


The PA is a bantustan government.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that there is actually a name for such an entity that pretends to be a state.
> 
> 
> 
> The PA is a bantustan government.
Click to expand...


It’s funny when you use terms you don’t understand.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What Type of Government is the Palestinian Authority.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

*BLUF*:  I'm not sure that "P F Tinmore's" response tells us anything.  I think he meant to say the Palestinian Authority (PA), as a government is similar to → or comparable to, → the Bantustan Government _(AKA:  Black Africa)_.  



RoccoR said:


> I don't know that there is actually a name for such an entity that pretends to be a state.





P F Tinmore said:


> The PA is a bantustan government.





Hollie said:


> It’s funny when you use terms you don’t understand.


*(COMMENT)*

The Bantustan Government was a matter of "racial segregation" _(*based on Black ethnic grouping and Black speech and linguistic patterns)*_.  It was a result of an "apartheid" policy to keep the Black and the Whites separated.  It essentially separated the South African (white) citizenship and left the new decisions of nationality and citizenship up to an autonomous territorial reserve for Black South Africans.  It was a territorial reserve with little or no nation building capacity.

The separation between sovereign Israel territory - on on side of the border demarcations and - Ramallah Government to the East, and the Gaza Strip Government to the South.  The Israeli sovereignty was a UN recommendation made real; becoming a self-governing nation and the nation of the Greatest Human Development in the Region _(so says the UN).  _It is NOT a separation based on *ethnic*, *racial*, or *religious* criteria.  This Bantustan criteria simply is not born-out by the facts.

On the Israeli side of the Border Barriers you will find:
*Ethnic groups*
Jewish 74.4% (of which Israel-born 76.9%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 15.9%, Africa-born 4.6%, Asia-born 2.6%), Arab 20.9%, other 4.7% (2018 est.)​*Languages*
Hebrew (official), Arabic (special status under Israeli law), English (most commonly used foreign language)​*Religions*
Jewish 74.3%, Muslim 17.8%, Christian 1.9%, Druze 1.6%, other 4.4% (2018 est.)​
On the West Bank side of the Border Barriers you will find:
*Ethnic groups*
Palestinian Arab, Jewish, other​*Languages*
Arabic, Hebrew (spoken by Israeli settlers and many Palestinians), English (widely understood)​*Religions*
Muslim 80-85% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12-14%, Christian 1-2.5% (mainly Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1% (2012 est.)​
On the Gaza Strip side of the Border Barriers you will find:
*Ethnic groups*
Palestinian Arab​*Languages*
Arabic, Hebrew (spoken by many Palestinians), English (widely understood)​*Religions*
Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0% (2012 est.)​
If anything, one could draw a conclusion that Israel is more diverse in it's Ethnic groups, Languages, and Religious tolerance than the territories in dispute _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.

This constant badgering and attempts to associate Israel with either "Apartheid" or descriptively as a "Bantustan" like government is just NOT substantiated in terms of real evidence.  This approach is the uneducated attempting to rally more of the uneducated in the audience.  But on only take a few minutes to fact-check this Arab Palestinian claim to learn that this is false, inaccurate, AND misleading information that is circulated with the intention to deceive.





_*Most Respectfully,
R*_


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What Type of Government is the Palestinian Authority.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  I'm not sure that "P F Tinmore's" response tells us anything.  I think he meant to say the Palestinian Authority (PA), as a government is similar to → or comparable to, → the Bantustan Government _(AKA:  Black Africa)_.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that there is actually a name for such an entity that pretends to be a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA is a bantustan government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s funny when you use terms you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Bantustan Government was a matter of "racial segregation" _(*based on Black ethnic grouping and Black speech and linguistic patterns)*_.  It was a result of an "apartheid" policy to keep the Black and the Whites separated.  It essentially separated the South African (white) citizenship and left the new decisions of nationality and citizenship up to an autonomous territorial reserve for Black South Africans.  It was a territorial reserve with little or no nation building capacity.
> 
> The separation between sovereign Israel territory - on on side of the border demarcations and - Ramallah Government to the East, and the Gaza Strip Government to the South.  The Israeli sovereignty was a UN recommendation made real; becoming a self-governing nation and the nation of the Greatest Human Development in the Region _(so says the UN).  _It is NOT a separation based on *ethnic*, *racial*, or *religious* criteria.  This Bantustan criteria simply is not born-out by the facts.
> 
> On the Israeli side of the Border Barriers you will find:
> *Ethnic groups*​Jewish 74.4% (of which Israel-born 76.9%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 15.9%, Africa-born 4.6%, Asia-born 2.6%), Arab 20.9%, other 4.7% (2018 est.)​
> *Languages*​Hebrew (official), Arabic (special status under Israeli law), English (most commonly used foreign language)​
> *Religions*​Jewish 74.3%, Muslim 17.8%, Christian 1.9%, Druze 1.6%, other 4.4% (2018 est.)​
> 
> On the West Bank side of the Border Barriers you will find:
> *Ethnic groups*​Palestinian Arab, Jewish, other​
> *Languages*​Arabic, Hebrew (spoken by Israeli settlers and many Palestinians), English (widely understood)​
> *Religions*​Muslim 80-85% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12-14%, Christian 1-2.5% (mainly Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1% (2012 est.)​
> 
> On the Gaza Strip side of the Border Barriers you will find:
> *Ethnic groups*​Palestinian Arab​
> *Languages*​Arabic, Hebrew (spoken by many Palestinians), English (widely understood)​
> *Religions*​Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0% (2012 est.)​
> 
> If anything, one could draw a conclusion that Israel is more diverse in it's Ethnic groups, Languages, and Religious tolerance than the territories in dispute _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.
> 
> This constant badgering and attempts to associate Israel with either "Apartheid" or descriptively as a "Bantustan" like government is just NOT substantiated in terms of real evidence.  This approach is the uneducated attempting to rally more of the uneducated in the audience.  But on only take a few minutes to fact-check this Arab Palestinian claim to learn that this is false, inaccurate, AND misleading information that is circulated with the intention to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Most Respectfully,*
> *R*_
Click to expand...


It seems that P.F. Tinmore misses the point that words / terms thrown carelessly around tend to lose any connection to their intrinsic meaning. The use of poorly chosen slogans such as “Bantustan” and “apartheid”, hurled at   Israel are neither accurate nor relevant. I suppose such terms are intended to be inflammatory but instead, generate mere face palm moments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Occupation of the American Mind original*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Occupation of the American Mind original*



Occupation™ is a social-economic gateway to Apartheid™.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This constant badgering and attempts to associate Israel with either "Apartheid" or descriptively as a "Bantustan" like government is just NOT substantiated in terms of real evidence.


Start @ 14:00


----------



## Hollie




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This constant badgering and attempts to associate Israel with either "Apartheid" or descriptively as a "Bantustan" like government is just NOT substantiated in terms of real evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Start @ 14:00
Click to expand...

Start at the beginning.


Virginia Tilley was a contributor to the phony ESCWA report that Richard Falk was derided for.

Cutting and pasting YouTube videos with these charlatans is little more than being an accomplice to fraud. I guess these folks appear wherever they can find an audience.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo (_Rights Based Approach_)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  This presentation emphasizes the need to raise the focus on Arab Palestinian Human Rights as a tool to wearing US Support to Israel.  And it attempts to shame (_the soul searching idea_) the US by suggesting that we support some notion that Israeli Lives are worth more than Palestinian Lives (_a take-off on Black Lives Matter which turned-out to be a tool to justify rioting and looting - weakening law enforcement services in the process_).  It also reemphasizes the notion that there is a "racial" and "apartheid" in trying to justify the recommendations by suggesting that this racial division gives way to apartheid.

​

			
				EXCERPT • Encyclopædia Britannica on Race said:
			
		

> Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as BLOOD TYPING, the excretion of AMINO ACIDS, and inherited ENZYME deficiencies.
> *SOURCE*:   © 2006 BY ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, INC. pp 1581




Race constructivists is a politically conveniently built criteria as a tool of justification for better (_positive consideration_) or worse treatment (_discrimination_).  In the case of the Arab Palestinians 'vs' Israelis → Israel is much more diverse.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

They openly say that they have no solution to offer.  The Report they present (*Breaking the Israeli-Palestine Staus Quo*) is a craftily authored anti-US Support to Israel.  

*Main Policy Recommendations *​​❖. Adopt a rights-based approach that prioritizes the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians.​​❖. In the face of Israeli actions that impede the creation of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, make clear that the United States will not support any dispensation that fails to guarantee full equality and enfranchisement for all those residing in the territory under Israeli control and jurisdiction.​
The Report criticizes US curtailment of aid in the support the Palestinian Authority [a subsidiary of the Palestine Liberation Authority (PLO)], the closure of the PLO Offices in Washington, and the movement of Embassy to Jerusalem as acts which undermine a comprehensive political settlement.  It complains that the status quo is no more sustainable today then it was in 2016.  Which is in part true.  The panelist suggest that the US should not weaponize aid that might pressure the PLO/PA to negotiate.  The report in a round-about way, attempts to use the Humanitarian Rights approach to achieve a two-State solution and reset the clock back to 1967 before the engagement.

It is another pro-Arab Palestinian political paper that offers no solution be rips into the heart of past US support of Israel and the lack of support for the PA.  It wants its community of readers to support any moves that will weaken the Israeli defense effort.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Over the wall and gone, a Jewish-American in the Palestinian West Bank: Joshua Davis at TEDxMuskegon*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Over the wall and gone, a Jewish-American in the Palestinian West Bank: *


Let's hope he's not on the business end of a Pal cleric's fatwa.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo (_Rights Based Approach_)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  This presentation emphasizes the need to raise the focus on Arab Palestinian Human Rights as a tool to wearing US Support to Israel.  And it attempts to shame (_the soul searching idea_) the US by suggesting that we support some notion that Israeli Lives are worth more than Palestinian Lives (_a take-off on Black Lives Matter which turned-out to be a tool to justify rioting and looting - weakening law enforcement services in the process_).  It also reemphasizes the notion that there is a "racial" and "apartheid" in trying to justify the recommendations by suggesting that this racial division gives way to apartheid.
> 
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT • Encyclopædia Britannica on Race said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as BLOOD TYPING, the excretion of AMINO ACIDS, and inherited ENZYME deficiencies.​*SOURCE*:   © 2006 BY ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, INC. pp 1581​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Race constructivists is a politically conveniently built criteria as a tool of justification for better (_positive consideration_) or worse treatment (_discrimination_).  In the case of the Arab Palestinians 'vs' Israelis → Israel is much more diverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 483029
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> They openly say that they have no solution to offer.  The Report they present (*Breaking the Israeli-Palestine Staus Quo*) is a craftily authored anti-US Support to Israel.
> 
> *Main Policy Recommendations *​​❖. Adopt a rights-based approach that prioritizes the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians.​​❖. In the face of Israeli actions that impede the creation of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, make clear that the United States will not support any dispensation that fails to guarantee full equality and enfranchisement for all those residing in the territory under Israeli control and jurisdiction.​
> The Report criticizes US curtailment of aid in the support the Palestinian Authority [a subsidiary of the Palestine Liberation Authority (PLO)], the closure of the PLO Offices in Washington, and the movement of Embassy to Jerusalem as acts which undermine a comprehensive political settlement.  It complains that the status quo is no more sustainable today then it was in 2016.  Which is in part true.  The panelist suggest that the US should not weaponize aid that might pressure the PLO/PA to negotiate.  The report in a round-about way, attempts to use the Humanitarian Rights approach to achieve a two-State solution and reset the clock back to 1967 before the engagement.
> 
> It is another pro-Arab Palestinian political paper that offers no solution be rips into the heart of past US support of Israel and the lack of support for the PA.  It wants its community of readers to support any moves that will weaken the Israeli defense effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

The Palestinians have been calling for a solution based on international law and UN resolutions for a ling time. It us good that it is finding its way into main stream discourse.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo (_Rights Based Approach_)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I'm not sure you understand the difference between International Human Rights Law (HRL) and International Humanitarian law (IHL).



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have been calling for a solution based on international law and UN resolutions for a ling time. It us good that it is finding its way into main stream discourse.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm surprised that you have the gull to even say that.  Each time I cited IHL and HRL, you argue with it.  The last big discussion was on the Gazians riot and charge on the "Right of Return" claim.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo (_Rights Based Approach_)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I'm not sure you understand the difference between International Human Rights Law (HRL) and International Humanitarian law (IHL).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been calling for a solution based on international law and UN resolutions for a ling time. It us good that it is finding its way into main stream discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm surprised that you have the gull to even say that.  Each time I cited IHL and HRL, you argue with it.  The last big discussion was on the Gazians riot and charge on the "Right of Return" claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*PREFACE: * Israel is not perfect; but then, what country is?
At a time when the World has become a very dangerous place, what is the Anti-Israeli Lobby all about?




Flash on Posting *1470* and Posting *1471*​*(THE OBVIOUS)*

The Israeli Settlement Issue is becoming and albatross for Israel.  The settlers are getting out of hand and becoming an ever bigger blight on the image of Israeli Fairness and Justice.

At some point the necessary first step will be that, the negative activities of the Jewish Settlements will have to be reigned-in and there confrontational reputation cleaned-up.

Part of thee clean-up effort will have to be curbing the heavy-handedness at which the Settlers treat Arab Palestinian neighbors.

The Area "C" Jewish Settlements will have to be dismantled and pulled-out and the Israeli Area "C" territory gradually be released from Israeli oversight.  This will become a post-confrontation and unilateral phasing out of Israeli territorial oversight.

*(COMMENT)*

There is no question to that → Israel has made some very heavy handed policy decisions in its role as the protectorate of Areas "B" and "C" in the territories outside of Israel.  And while the Israelis don't generally speak of it, the multifaceted nature of Israel _(both politically and religiously)_ is sometimes complicated  by a less than sparkling attitude towards its caretaker role of these territories → Israel is going to have to face the fact that it cannot hold onto the territories indefinitely without some positive change and investment - or - withdraw.   

*(OBSERVATION)*

There is a kind of faulty reasoning on the issues when the anti-Israel Lobby makes an exchange → "emotion" replacing "critical thinking."  The anti-Israeli Lobby induces generalized opinions rather than increasing its specific knowledge on the issue. The anti-Israeli Lobby attempt to persuade_ (with some very spectacular successes)_ without offering much of a logical path of reasoning - to adopt a particular view in the application of "apartheid" overlaid on reality - rather than a rational view of the true situation.  And sometimes, the Israelis unwittingly contribute to this underdog view of the settlement controversy; as in the adverse impact of allowing settlement thug type actions to grow unchecked.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism - Thomas Suárez*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Resisting Israel’s Lobby on Campus and in the Community - Robin Kelley*


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *PREFACE: * Israel is not perfect; but then, what country is?
> At a time when the World has become a very dangerous place, what is the Anti-Israeli Lobby all about?
> 
> View attachment 484421
> Flash on Posting *1470* and Posting *1471*​*(THE OBVIOUS)*
> 
> The Israeli Settlement Issue is becoming and albatross for Israel.  The settlers are getting out of hand and becoming an ever bigger blight on the image of Israeli Fairness and Justice.
> 
> At some point the necessary first step will be that, the negative activities of the Jewish Settlements will have to be reigned-in and there confrontational reputation cleaned-up.
> 
> Part of thee clean-up effort will have to be curbing the heavy-handedness at which the Settlers treat Arab Palestinian neighbors.
> 
> The Area "C" Jewish Settlements will have to be dismantled and pulled-out and the Israeli Area "C" territory gradually be released from Israeli oversight.  This will become a post-confrontation and unilateral phasing out of Israeli territorial oversight.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question to that → Israel has made some very heavy handed policy decisions in its role as the protectorate of Areas "B" and "C" in the territories outside of Israel.  And while the Israelis don't generally speak of it, the multifaceted nature of Israel _(both politically and religiously)_ is sometimes complicated  by a less than sparkling attitude towards its caretaker role of these territories → Israel is going to have to face the fact that it cannot hold onto the territories indefinitely without some positive change and investment - or - withdraw.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> There is a kind of faulty reasoning on the issues when the anti-Israel Lobby makes an exchange → "emotion" replacing "critical thinking."  The anti-Israeli Lobby induces generalized opinions rather than increasing its specific knowledge on the issue. The anti-Israeli Lobby attempt to persuade_ (with some very spectacular successes)_ without offering much of a logical path of reasoning - to adopt a particular view in the application of "apartheid" overlaid on reality - rather than a rational view of the true situation.  And sometimes, the Israelis unwittingly contribute to this underdog view of the settlement controversy; as in the adverse impact of allowing settlement thug type actions to grow unchecked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_



Wait what??!
RoccoR hold on a sec...

When discussing hostile elements in the context of sovereignty,
You've suggested to curb any lexicon of Bin-Nus's 3 options,
but now have no problem to suggest to "clean-up" Israelis?

Please, show me where I've misunderstood You.
Otherwise You just contradict Yourself,
and prove the 3 options correct.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ rylah, _et al,_

*PREFACE: * Israel is not perfect; but then, what country is?

*BLUF*:  Most anti-Israeli rhetoric is about disfiguring the face of Israel rather than looking at the issues objectively.



rylah said:


> Wait what??!
> RoccoR hold on a sec...
> 
> When discussing hostile elements in the context of sovereignty,
> You've suggested to curb any lexicon of Bin-Nus's 3 options,
> but now have no problem to suggest to "clean-up" Israelis?
> 
> Please, show me where I've misunderstood You.
> Otherwise You just contradict Yourself,
> and prove the 3 options correct.


*(COMMENT)*

No state is 100% correct all the time _(ie no state has a decision process which is perfect or without flaws)_.  There is always _(I hate that word)_ room for improver in the aggregate or in its individual components.  Every culture has room to grow.



"If you’re like me, you want to change so that you can have a better life
— a life that works better, gives you more happiness, and helps you
find more peace."
*Jennifer Kunst Ph.D.*
*A Headshrinker's Guide to the Galaxy*
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪ ✪ ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​In terms of the context of sovereignty, it is much simpler then people make it out to be.

◈  Israel is sovereign (so far) only where it says it is sovereign.​◈  Israel is sovereign (so far) everywhere is says it is sovereign.​
These two may sound like the same thing, but there is a subtile different.  If the security barrier strays across the Green Line, that extra piece of territory is sovereign to Israel.  Why?  Because Israel exercises "exclusively" its domestic laws on that side of the Security Barrier.

◈  The Ramallah Government is sovereign to Area "A" and only Area "A."​◈  HAMAS is sovereign to the Gaza Strip and only the Gaza Strip.​
Why is this true?  Because Hamas exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip.  The Ramallah Government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over Area "A."

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪ ✪ ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​
No matter what option Israel decides to pursue, it should keep in mind that it has three environments of which it must content:

◈  The Domestic Environment​◈  The Arab Palestinian Environment​◈  The World-Wide Environment​
Only a perfect decision _(very unlikely)_ can satisfy all three environments and still achieve its goal.  It may choose to completely satisfy one environment and through polished mitigating techniques, sufficiently satisfy the other two environments in varying degrees.

An example of one such polished mitigation → is to apply a law enforcement solution that captures the attention of the Arab Palestinians; that being police interdiction of Israeli Settlers and the neighboring Arab Palestinians.  Whether or not it is true, the projected image is that the Settlers can harass and assault the Palestinians while Law Enforcement stands by and does nothing.  There is no question that this image can be polished-up from the external perspectives from many directions.

The external image of Israel may not be correct, but it is very relevant and still can damages Israel in terms of diplomatic capital.  Israel may want to expand its consideration and extend it's diplomatic capital through to ocassional settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.  One way to initiate such a change is to implement a "Rapid Magistrate Response Cell" (RDMC) that can deploy to temporary hot spots and hear cases and dispense true fairness and justice; not just compliance oriented decisions always in favor of the Israelis.

At some point, whether or not the Arab Palestinians ask for it, Israel should implement four principles fairness and confidence in the Israelis.

◈  Arab Palestinians should be granted by the RDMC a "no-cost" opportunity to explain the mitigating circumstances or their actions and the benefit of their actions BEFORE any penalty (if any) is adjudicated.  And if the presentation makes sense, rule in favor of the Arab Palestinian.​​◈  The Arab Palestinian must gain a sense that the RDMC is fair and is balanced between both sides can examine the  the case for reasons extrinsic to the facts that benefit the community or law.​​◈  The RDMC must show a level of dignity to the Arab Palestinian that projects and constitutes respectful treatment and  of civility.​​◈  The RDMC Authorities need to be seen as benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to help the Arab Palestinians.​​Whether or not the Arab Palestinians actually requests a combined Article X and XV "Dispute Resolution Process" it must be something for the Israelis to consider unilaterally. 

From a Counter-Terrorism and Counterinsurgency standpoint, these kinds of actions can take the wind from their sails.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪ ✪ ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​*(SIDEBAR)*

As Dr Kunst eludes to, the goal should be moving towards "happiness and peace;" whether it is applied to a single person, a community, a culture or a nation.  And this is the principle difference between Israel _(which is always significantly higher in human development than any of the Arab States and light-years beyond the Arab Palestinian)_ and the Arab Palestinians.  For the Arab Palestinians to improve requires an alteration or fundamental change in their the methodology, concepts, and practices which guide them politically and effect them culturally. 

What must change first:

◈  There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. _[Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)]_​◈  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. _(Palestinian National Council and Fatah)_​​




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

*New!*

*From an Israel-Centric to a Rights-Based Approach - Zaha Hassan*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo (_Rights Based Approach_)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  This presentation emphasizes the need to raise the focus on Arab Palestinian Human Rights as a tool to wearing US Support to Israel.  And it attempts to shame (_the soul searching idea_) the US by suggesting that we support some notion that Israeli Lives are worth more than Palestinian Lives (_a take-off on Black Lives Matter which turned-out to be a tool to justify rioting and looting - weakening law enforcement services in the process_).  It also reemphasizes the notion that there is a "racial" and "apartheid" in trying to justify the recommendations by suggesting that this racial division gives way to apartheid.
> 
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT • Encyclopædia Britannica on Race said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as BLOOD TYPING, the excretion of AMINO ACIDS, and inherited ENZYME deficiencies.​*SOURCE*:   © 2006 BY ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, INC. pp 1581​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Race constructivists is a politically conveniently built criteria as a tool of justification for better (_positive consideration_) or worse treatment (_discrimination_).  In the case of the Arab Palestinians 'vs' Israelis → Israel is much more diverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 483029
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> They openly say that they have no solution to offer.  The Report they present (*Breaking the Israeli-Palestine Staus Quo*) is a craftily authored anti-US Support to Israel.
> 
> *Main Policy Recommendations *​​❖. Adopt a rights-based approach that prioritizes the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians.​​❖. In the face of Israeli actions that impede the creation of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, make clear that the United States will not support any dispensation that fails to guarantee full equality and enfranchisement for all those residing in the territory under Israeli control and jurisdiction.​
> The Report criticizes US curtailment of aid in the support the Palestinian Authority [a subsidiary of the Palestine Liberation Authority (PLO)], the closure of the PLO Offices in Washington, and the movement of Embassy to Jerusalem as acts which undermine a comprehensive political settlement.  It complains that the status quo is no more sustainable today then it was in 2016.  Which is in part true.  The panelist suggest that the US should not weaponize aid that might pressure the PLO/PA to negotiate.  The report in a round-about way, attempts to use the Humanitarian Rights approach to achieve a two-State solution and reset the clock back to 1967 before the engagement.
> 
> It is another pro-Arab Palestinian political paper that offers no solution be rips into the heart of past US support of Israel and the lack of support for the PA.  It wants its community of readers to support any moves that will weaken the Israeli defense effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been calling for a solution based on international law and UN resolutions for a ling time. It us good that it is finding its way into main stream discourse.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Pally's have been furthering a solution to the Jews in accordance with a 1,400 year old pitico-religious ideology. To suggest the Pally's have any interest in international law is nonsense. Actions speak with the utmost clarity and the continued Islamic terrorist gee-had being waged by the angry tribes in Gaza and Mahmoud'istan speak to lawlessness and religious hatreds.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine, Propaganda and the President - Ali Abunimah*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The General's Son: From Privileged Zionist to Activist for Palestinian Rights*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Students for Justice in Palestine: The past, present and future of the student movement for the liberation of Palestine
					

Michael Arria speaks with Students for Justice in Palestine activists about how the movement has grown over the last 10 years, and where it is headed.




					mondoweiss.net


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Our History, Our Future – With Sir Simon Schama, Deborah Lipstadt and David Myers

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*NGP Talks with Susan Muaddi Darraj*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Noam Chomsky - US/ Israeli Crimes Against Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"The Tawla" Discussion with Professor Rabab Abdulhadi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Genocidal Israeli Mobs Attack Palestinians - Exclusive Ali Abunimah Interview by Rania Khalek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution (Part 3 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel Lobby: What Everyone Needs to Know - Walter L. Hixson​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

#LightTheLamps: Annual Ramadan Gala​


----------



## Hollie

Ramadan celebration of Islamic terrorist attacks.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Of course the first thing potato head said was Hamas.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Prof. Ilan Pappé: 2 State Solution is a Cover For The West To Ignore Abuses Against Palestine!​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

12 Years of Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five; a Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> 12 Years of Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five; a Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​


Those horrible infidels and their man-made laws.


----------



## P F Tinmore

CCF Webinar: Israel's Interference in the U.S. Criminal Justice System​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Raided and Razed: West Bank Education Under Attack​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Miko Peled: Speaking Out for Palestine - Sandra Day O'Connor Law College at Arizona State University​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli and Palestinian Elections: Opportunities for Change or More of Same?​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

On the Organized Violence against Palestinian Citizens of Israel w/ Sawsan Zaher & Sarah Anne Minkin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

“‘Til Kingdom Come”: Evangelicals, Israel/Palestine, and Messianic Politics​


----------



## José

Germany must stop making Palestinians pay for its crimes – Ali Abunimah on DW​
YouTube comments:​​Monika Wiedmann​5 days ago​He is right to say that Palestinians pay for the guilty German conscience, It has to stop! As a German I detest the fact that my country arms the oppressor!

Hussam Moussa​3 days ago​"Blessed are the invaded and the colonized who have always had to defend themselves without having the power or the privilege to declare it ‘a right’."

E. Javier Paniagua​6 days ago
There is nothing more devastating than the truth. #FreePalestine

Matt P.​6 days ago
They seem to always run out of time when the truth is inconvenient.

Viewable11​1 day ago (edited)
Deutsche Welle removed this interview from their website and apologized to the state of Israel for having published it, accusing Ali Abunimah of having made antisemitic remarks.

stmoloud​6 days ago
Ali is awesome. A great ability to pack so much truth into such little time frame.

Harjinder Saini​6 days ago
Now that is what you call a verbal slap
https://accounts.google.com/Service...n-GB&next=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMPa83wSa9ik&hl=en-GB
Eüro Nasty​1 day ago
More like a beat down

Tom Hall​6 days ago​Brilliant exposition by Ali Abunimah, demolishing the objections of the American hack.  I know it's German tv, but they hired an American just to get their point across.  It didn't work.
​Archerix A​4 days ago​DW deleted that interview. That's free speech so far.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT9sOeZdSuG6kfC9SO4p_ng


----------



## P F Tinmore

José said:


> Germany must stop making Palestinians pay for its crimes – Ali Abunimah on DW​
> YouTube comments:​​​Monika Wiedmann​5 days ago​He is right to say that Palestinians pay for the guilty German conscience, It has to stop! As a German I detest the fact that my country arms the oppressor!
> ​Hussam Moussa​3 days ago​"Blessed are the invaded and the colonized who have always had to defend themselves without having the power or the privilege to declare it ‘a right’."
> E. Javier Paniagua​6 days ago
> There is nothing more devastating than the truth. #FreePalestine
> 
> Matt P.​6 days ago
> They seem to always run out of time when the truth is inconvenient.
> 
> Viewable11​1 day ago (edited)
> Deutsche Welle removed this interview from their website and apologized to the state of Israel for having published it, accusing Ali Abunimah of having made antisemitic remarks.
> stmoloud​6 days ago
> Ali is awesome. A great ability to pack so much truth into such little time frame.
> 
> Harjinder Saini​6 days ago
> Now that is what you call a verbal slap
> https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=youtube&uilel=3&passive=true&continue=https://www.youtube.com/signin?action_handle_signin=true&app=desktop&hl=en-GB&next=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMPa83wSa9ik&hl=en-GB
> Eüro Nasty​1 day ago
> More like a beat down
> ​Tom Hall​6 days ago​Brilliant exposition by Ali Abunimah, demolishing the objections of the American hack.  I know it's German tv, but they hired an American just to get their point across.  It didn't work.
> ​​Archerix A​4 days ago​DW deleted that interview. That's free speech so far.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT9sOeZdSuG6kfC9SO4p_ng


My favorite interview was when Ali Abunimah was on British TV. The host started with rockets, Hamas, terrorism, blah, blah, blah. Ali responded with: Before we discuss Israel's talking points let me tell you about Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## toastman

I think Tinmore is talking to himself again... Maybe someone should tell him that the Palestinian propaganda area is down the street


----------



## P F Tinmore

Huwaida Arraf   Lawfare and Legal Challenges in the USA​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Heat  w/Hanan Ashrawi, Ali Abunimah & Amotz Asa-El (May 13 2021)​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat Discusses Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah with CNN's Becky Anderson​


----------



## P F Tinmore

John Pilger Interview: Israel is a LYING MACHINE, Palestine Has The Right to Resist!​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Geraldo Defends Palestinians And Schools Fox News On The Crisis​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Marc Lamont Hill, Noura Erakat and Aja Monet on Black-Palestinian Solidarity​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Michael Lynk: Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel SMEARS Bella Hadid For Palestine Post​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Right Wingers FREAK OUT Over Palestine Flag at FA Cup Final​


----------



## LA RAM FAN

you will never  hear this news reported by the corporate controlled news here in the states









						Ex-Israeli Pilot: 'Our Army Is a Terrorist Organisation Run by War Criminals' - Global Research
					

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).  Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch. *** A former Israeli Air Force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, has described the...




					www.globalresearch.ca


----------



## P F Tinmore

Angela Davis & Noura Erakat on Palestinian Solidarity, Gaza & Israel’s Killing of Ahmad Erekat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Exclusive interview: Honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

After Decades, Biden and Netanyahu Relationship at Inflection Point​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A Sea Change on Israel for the Democratic Party​


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Violent left wing Pali bigots are assaulting innocent people in NYC.
Why do the Progressives behave like wild animals?








						Cops issue photos of four men who 'pummeled Kippa-wearing Jewish man'
					

The NYPD has issued photos of four pro-Palestinian men who allegedly maced, kicked and pummeled a Kippa-wearing Jewish man on his way to a pro-Israel rally on Thursday.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Gideon Levy makes sense of the violence consuming Israel-Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Foreign Ministry Spox. Challenged On Gaza Death Toll, Apartheid State, Illegal Occupation​

Israeli Foreign Ministry is soooooo full of shit. That is probably why he got the job.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish Journalist FIRED For Calling Out Media Bias On Israel & Palestine​

I had a rather lengthy discussion with AP about their coverage. What it boiled down to was:
Whatever the government tells them that is your news.
If it is a lie that is your news.
If AP knows it is a lie that is your news.

MSNBC's Sole Palestinian Voice Rula Jebreal Takes on Pro-Israeli Gov't Bias at Network & in US Media​


----------



## P F Tinmore

In U.N. Speech, Noam Chomsky Blasts United States for Supporting Israel, Blocking Palestinian State​

Noam Chomsky at United Nations: It Would Be Nice if the United States Lived up to International Law​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sour grapes, talking points, and name calling.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ongoing Nakba: Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza, and Historic Palestine*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi: ‘Two State Solution is Dead, Israel Destroyed It...Palestine Will Not Surrender!’​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

How Palestinian resistance defeated Israel with Ali Abunimah & Jon Elmer |​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel lobby's war on ethnic studies with Robin D. G. Kelley and Lara Kiswani​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin talks about Gaza, Palestine, Israel, BDS, and her film: Gaza Fights For Freedom​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The US-Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Rania Khalek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Finkelstein: Gaza assault a disaster for Israel, while Palestine solidarity is revived​


----------



## P F Tinmore

I Will Not Yield My Values: Fired AP Journalist Emily Wilder Speaks Out After Right-Wing Smears​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hundreds Of Ex-Biden Staffers Publicly Call On Him To Free Palestinians​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Soldier calls himself a 'Terrorist' when Interviewed.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel is bombing Gaza, while extremists ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Ali Abunimah and Rania Khalek join Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, and Anya Parampil to discuss the colonial violence - and indigenous resistance.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*PREFACE*:  I doubt very seriously that any of the commentators and panelists mentioned are looking at the situation objectively.

*BLUF*:  No nation of any consequence is going to continually allow rocket and mortar attacks (now in the thousands) to go unanswered.  No nation of any consequence is going to even remotely suggest that they are not permitted to protect their borders or safeguard their citizens.  No nation of any consequence is going to even hint at the suggestion that they do not have the right to self-defense from hostile external entities.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is bombing Gaza, while extremists ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Ali Abunimah and Rania Khalek join Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, and Anya Parampil to discuss the colonial violence - and indigenous resistance.


*(THE OBVIOUS)*

It is obvious that in each and every significant conflict exchange since the Oslo Accords was initiated by one or another ot the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) Factions.

*(COMMENT)*

In this segment of the  "*Grey Zone*" _(which is depicted as credible news and investigative journalism)_ starts out in the opening sentence (_by Aaron Mate • aaronmate@protonmail.com, holder of the 2019 Izzy Award and a former producer at __*Al Jazeera*__ English_):  "this latest Israeli Attack on Gaza."   

*(OBSERVATION #1)*

Between 10 May and 20 May of this year (2021), over 4300 Rockets were fired at Israeli Civilian Population Centers.

Name a single member of the top 25 Developed nations of the world which would find it acceptable?  

◈  In 2020 between 23 and 24 February a barrage 90 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 12 November a barrage 190 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 5 May a barrage 200 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 4 May a barrage 250 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  During the year 2018 over 330 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers in 15 separate attacks.​
Since January 2018, over 35 separate rocket or mortar attacks were launched against Israeli Population Centers.  Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would have tolerated that (_*China*__*, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and *_*the United States*)?   Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would have allowed a barrage of over 4000 rockets to go unanswered without a significant neutralization operation?

*(OBSERVATION #2)*

Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council consider border protection and security an "apartheid" measure?  Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council consider customs and immigration an "apartheid" measure?

*(OBSERVATION #3)*

There is no international law against Israeli self-defense.  

But there is a number of international laws against HoAP attacks on Israel.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli Soldier calls himself a 'Terrorist' when Interviewed.​


*(MUSE)*

I can only wonder what the motivation was here...  Was he paid?  Did he want his 15 minutes of fame?  Was he ticked-off at the IDF for something?  What is the rest of the story?





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *PREFACE*:  I doubt very seriously that any of the commentators and panelists mentioned are looking at the situation objectively.
> 
> *BLUF*:  No nation of any consequence is going to continually allow rocket and mortar attacks (now in the thousands) to go unanswered.  No nation of any consequence is going to even remotely suggest that they are not permitted to protect their borders or safeguard their citizens.  No nation of any consequence is going to even hint at the suggestion that they do not have the right to self-defense from hostile external entities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is bombing Gaza, while extremists ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Ali Abunimah and Rania Khalek join Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, and Anya Parampil to discuss the colonial violence - and indigenous resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(THE OBVIOUS)*
> 
> It is obvious that in each and every significant conflict exchange since the Oslo Accords was initiated by one or another ot the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) Factions.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this segment of the  "*Grey Zone*" _(which is depicted as credible news and investigative journalism)_ starts out in the opening sentence (_by Aaron Mate • aaronmate@protonmail.com, holder of the 2019 Izzy Award and a former producer at __*Al Jazeera*__ English_):  "this latest Israeli Attack on Gaza."
> 
> *(OBSERVATION #1)*
> 
> Between 10 May and 20 May of this year (2021), over 4300 Rockets were fired at Israeli Civilian Population Centers.
> 
> Name a single member of the top 25 Developed nations of the world which would find it acceptable?
> 
> ◈  In 2020 between 23 and 24 February a barrage 90 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 12 November a barrage 190 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 5 May a barrage 200 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  In 2019 on 4 May a barrage 250 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers.​◈  During the year 2018 over 330 rockets were fired at Israeli Population Centers in 15 separate attacks.​
> Since January 2018, over 35 separate rocket or mortar attacks were launched against Israeli Population Centers.  Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would have tolerated that (_*China*__*, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and *_*the United States*)?   Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would have allowed a barrage of over 4000 rockets to go unanswered without a significant neutralization operation?
> 
> *(OBSERVATION #2)*
> 
> Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council consider border protection and security an "apartheid" measure?  Which of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council consider customs and immigration an "apartheid" measure?
> 
> *(OBSERVATION #3)*
> 
> There is no international law against Israeli self-defense.
> 
> But there is a number of international laws against HoAP attacks on Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.


*(COMMENT)*

When you are fighting a fire, and the water you pump onto the fire is not doing the job, you call for more hoses and lay more water onto the fire.  When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.  You must completely extinguish it and make sure the potential for the flare-up is eliminated.

The same is true with terrorist-supporting populations and governments.  The rule of "proportionality" says:  

*Rule 14*. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.​​*IF* the threat from the terrorist, the terrorist-supporting populations and governments keep recurring, obviously the level of the combat response is not enough to attain a "concrete and direct military advantage" necessary to eliminate the hostile combat threat (objective anticipated) → *AND *you simply see  (as you say) "That doesn't work. Try something new."  *THAT* is when you increase the level of effort _(twice as long and twice as hard)_ to silence the threat.

✪  The concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is:  1) suppress the current threat, and 2) eliminate the will to fight and silence that which will continue the struggle.

One thing is for sure:  Israel cannot be accused of excessive use of force.  WHY?  (RHETORICAL) Because the threat keeps re immerging from the hostile force.  The concrete and direct military advantage was never achieved.

*(SIDEBAR)*

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has continued for all these many years because the Israelis have been so heavily criticized for the combat force that they did apply.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.


Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel / Palestine - This Needs To Be Heard​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dua Lipa, Gigi & Bella Hadid SMEARED For Supporting Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel-Palestine: The double standard in American newsrooms​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.
Click to expand...

“_Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity._”

You might want to add that to an email you send to the Islamic terrorist franchises in the areas they occupy. Tell them to read it aloud to themselves when they complain about an Israeli response to gee-had attacks.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel-Palestine: The double standard in American newsrooms​


I suspect you’re suffering some hurt feelings about _different_ standards being applied to Islamic terrorist enclaves vs. civil societies.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity._”
> 
> You might want to add that to an email you send to the Islamic terrorist franchises in the areas they occupy. Tell them to read it aloud to themselves when they complain about an Israeli response to gee-had attacks.
Click to expand...

The Palestinian response to Israeli violence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​



Could you point out the destruction? Maybe a youtube video?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the destruction? Maybe a youtube video?
Click to expand...

Sure, it is in the video that you didn't watch.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity._”
> 
> You might want to add that to an email you send to the Islamic terrorist franchises in the areas they occupy. Tell them to read it aloud to themselves when they complain about an Israeli response to gee-had attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinian response to Israeli violence.
Click to expand...

What violence?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the destruction? Maybe a youtube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it is in the video that you didn't watch.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone watch the silly YouTube videos you spam threads with?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the destruction? Maybe a youtube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it is in the video that you didn't watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone watch the silly YouTube videos you spam threads with?
Click to expand...

You could learn something or remain stupid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity._”
> 
> You might want to add that to an email you send to the Islamic terrorist franchises in the areas they occupy. Tell them to read it aloud to themselves when they complain about an Israeli response to gee-had attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinian response to Israeli violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What violence?
Click to expand...

You need to keep up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the destruction? Maybe a youtube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it is in the video that you didn't watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone watch the silly YouTube videos you spam threads with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could learn something or remain stupid.
Click to expand...

How does that address my post?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you fight a fire, and you don't completely extinguish it, or it will flare-up after a time - and you'll have to come back and fight the fire again.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity. There are different ways to address these problems but they are beyond Israel's mental capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_Doing the same thing over, and over, and over again and expecting different results is a sign if insanity._”
> 
> You might want to add that to an email you send to the Islamic terrorist franchises in the areas they occupy. Tell them to read it aloud to themselves when they complain about an Israeli response to gee-had attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinian response to Israeli violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What violence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to keep up.
Click to expand...

How does that address my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Ilan Pappe & Diana Buttu: What Next for Palestine?​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Israel milks this *one guy* for all its worth.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel milks this *one guy* for all its worth.
Click to expand...

You should pen a fatwa. Maybe there's a template on youtube.


----------



## P F Tinmore

EYE ON PALESTINE: A Teach-In with Lamis Deek​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Don’t Forget About Israelis, Palestinians When Bombs Aren’t Falling | The Mehdi Hasan Show​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is The Palestinian Resistance Moving Back Towards Armed Struggle? (Oslo II Accords Negotiator)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Yasser Arafat's Nephew: Israeli-Occupied Palestine WORSE Than Apartheid, It's Settler-Colonialism!​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noam Chomsky in conversation with Noura Erakat​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​



I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
to demand exclusive Arab domination...

"The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
is turning mainly against the US itself...
but how is that your concern, right?

...every Rome has its barbarians....


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...


False premise.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise.
Click to expand...

You need to keep up.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise.
Click to expand...


Really, then what is the logical conclusion
of your demands to dismantle Israel,

if not exclusive Arab domination?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, then what is the logical conclusion
> of your demands to dismantle Israel,
> 
> if not exclusive Arab domination?
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that one group has to "rule over" another group?


----------



## P F Tinmore

PACC Conference 2021 (Day 1) with Rashid Khalidi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Chris Hedges interviews Dr Sami Al-Arian | Palestinian and Israeli Hostilities.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Remi Kanazi backs Ilhan Omar, calling for 'open and honest discourse'​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, then what is the logical conclusion
> of your demands to dismantle Israel,
> 
> if not exclusive Arab domination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get the idea that one group has to "rule over" another group?
Click to expand...

Learn your Islamism. At no time in islamist history has the infidel been treated as an equal to a Moslem.  The history of islamic colonialism has been a history of war, rapine and conquest. 

It's on YouTube.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tide is FINALLY Turning in the U.S. in Favor of Palestinian Human Rights​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> "The Tide" seems rather than, in favor of anyone,
> is turning mainly against the US itself...
> but how is that your concern, right?
> 
> ...every Rome has its barbarians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there were some special Palestinian "human right"
> to demand exclusive Arab domination...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, then what is the logical conclusion
> of your demands to dismantle Israel,
> 
> if not exclusive Arab domination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get the idea that one group has to "rule over" another group?
Click to expand...


From your demand to "liberate Arab lands",
excluding from the map the only non-Arab/Muslim state in the middle east.

From your equating the presence of Jews to a "crime against humanity", and rejecting any notion of property, even when proven by your sources "illegal" by the definition of a wrong ethnicity to live among another group you deem to deserve exclusive domination to the detriment of all involved.

From your support of Hamas -

"On this day, as we are witnessing all that is happening with the grace of Allah, we are looking forwards to two important things, which are within sight:

*Cleanse Palestine of the "filth of the Jews" by 2022*
*From the River to the Sea - establishment of Caliphate*



From your support of PLO -



Q. What is the logical conclusion behind your supremacist ideology, 
but the *exclusive Arab domination over the entire middle east?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

"The 100 Years' War on Palestine" Teach-In  with Professor Rashid Khalidi (5/20/2021)​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Isn't that the fake news lady who used to wear gigantic Islamic protective outerwear?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> "The 100 Years' War on Palestine" Teach-In  with Professor Rashid Khalidi (5/20/2021)​


You folks sure know how to find the worst of the worst as your misfit heroes.

He was hawking merchandise after the talk and you bought autographed Pom Poms, right?









						Rutgers hosts professor who compared Israel supporters to rodents for event on conflict in the Middle East | The College Fix
					

Says Palestinian war crimes need to be understood in 'context.'




					www.thecollegefix.com
				




A professor of Middle Eastern politics who compared supporters of Israel to rodents, recently spoke at Rutgers University where he spoke about Palestinian attacks on Israel and argued for understanding its actions in a historical context.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Pal'istan rising?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*PREFACE*: I'll be very open and honest upfront. I could only get through the first eleven and a half minutes into the presentation. And in that first eleven minutes (+) the essence was a thesis on the ethical issues that expressing emotional outbursts and utterances in a string; like following the repetitive beads of a Dominican Rosary.  They make the same set of complaints and accusations broken by an _ad hominem_ or a breakdown of logic.  Then they start over.  They use new phrases to describe the same conditions to make it sound as if it were unrepetitive.  One of my favorites was the "Palestinian Resistance Trust."  And the accusations and complaints are riddled with terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" when in fact none of these terms fit the ground truth and reality of the situation.  Thus these accusations cannot be either true or false.  It like a precious work of art • perfectly honest people appreciate _Mona Lisa_ (_Leonardo da Vinci__ 1503_) to varying degrees - and some _(like myself) _not at all. 

*BLUF*: When I was in High School, during football season, there was this ritual called a pep rally before every game.    In my day, we had the worse team ever.  But after a pep rally - you would have thought we were the State Champions.  These little Pro-Palestinian videos are very much like a Pep Rally for the State Sponsor of Palestinian Terrorism *(**as defined by the EU**)*.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*
.
Many of the terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" are used for sensationalism and shock value.  The Gaza Strip engineered their position and the consequences that were an outcome of their violence.

Remove the element of sympathy and you wash away the principal edge of support.

Remember (what is often forgotten and the pro-Palestinians never mention), each attack by the (so-called) Resistance violation under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) → "protected persons" (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the "Occupying Power" (Israelis) are subject to prosecution by the Occupation Power.

This is not up for debate, it is the law *(Article 68 GCIV)*.  It does not require interpretation.  Each Incidiary Device released, each rocket or mortar fired, each incursion into Israeli Sovereign Territory, is a violation of Customary and IHL.  Whereas a defensive response by the Israelis to the violence incited by the Arab Palestinian Leadership [_a violation of International Humanitarian Law • Article 20 - __*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__ (CCPR)_] is taken to secure the Israeli Citizens acts of aggression.

No pro-Palestinian Pep Rally, riot or march is going to change that.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Pal'istan rising?


Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *PREFACE*: I'll be very open and honest upfront. I could only get through the first eleven and a half minutes into the presentation. And in that first eleven minutes (+) the essence was a thesis on the ethical issues that expressing emotional outbursts and utterances in a string; like following the repetitive beads of a Dominican Rosary.  They make the same set of complaints and accusations broken by an _ad hominem_ or a breakdown of logic.  Then they start over.  They use new phrases to describe the same conditions to make it sound as if it were unrepetitive.  One of my favorites was the "Palestinian Resistance Trust."  And the accusations and complaints are riddled with terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" when in fact none of these terms fit the ground truth and reality of the situation.  Thus these accusations cannot be either true or false.  It like a precious work of art • perfectly honest people appreciate _Mona Lisa_ (_Leonardo da Vinci__ 1503_) to varying degrees - and some _(like myself) _not at all.
> 
> *BLUF*: When I was in High School, during football season, there was this ritual called a pep rally before every game.    In my day, we had the worse team ever.  But after a pep rally - you would have thought we were the State Champions.  These little Pro-Palestinian videos are very much like a Pep Rally for the State Sponsor of Palestinian Terrorism *(**as defined by the EU**)*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Many of the terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" are used for sensationalism and shock value.  The Gaza Strip engineered their position and the consequences that were an outcome of their violence.
> 
> Remove the element of sympathy and you wash away the principal edge of support.
> 
> Remember (what is often forgotten and the pro-Palestinians never mention), each attack by the (so-called) Resistance violation under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) → "protected persons" (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the "Occupying Power" (Israelis) are subject to prosecution by the Occupation Power.
> 
> This is not up for debate, it is the law *(Article 68 GCIV)*.  It does not require interpretation.  Each Incidiary Device released, each rocket or mortar fired, each incursion into Israeli Sovereign Territory, is a violation of Customary and IHL.  Whereas a defensive response by the Israelis to the violence incited by the Arab Palestinian Leadership [_a violation of International Humanitarian Law • Article 20 - __*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__ (CCPR)_] is taken to secure the Israeli Citizens acts of aggression.
> 
> No pro-Palestinian Pep Rally, riot or march is going to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that the Palestinians cannot respond to Israel's aggression?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_


P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)

.




_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
Click to expand...

A sovereign nation defending its citizens from attack is not a war crime. You offered nothing to support such a claim. Emotional outbursts do nothing to support an argument. 

Hurling terms which you don't understand and which don't apply merely as an appeal to emotion is time wasting but a tactic used often by the Pallys.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

This was a war of choice for Israel.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional. 









						Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
					

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Why does Israel start history in the middle?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> So, are you saying that the Palestinians cannot respond to Israel's aggression?


*(COMMENT)*

Not at all.  But I have not seen an act of Israeli aggression against the Aarab Palestinians since the turn of the century.  Every engagement by the Israelis was precipitated by Arab Palestinian violence.

I cannot think of any instance in which Israel has taken any territory from the Arab Palestinians in the last half-century_ (five decades or 50 years)_.

Remember, the Jordanians relinquished all ties with the West Bank, including Jerusalem in 1988.  That left it in the hands of the Israelis.  The PLO had not bothered to form a government.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Why does Israel start history in the middle?


*(ANSWER)*

Israel, proper, does not actually have a history prior to 15 May 1948.  Prior to that, the territory in question was subject to the Mandate for Palestine, as agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers; in the agreement including the putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers.  While the intent was established in 1917, the formal Armistice did not occur until the end of the war 31 October 1918.  However, Damascus was Occupied by Allied Forces on 1 October 1918.

So when do suggest the historical relevance start?   The Arab Palestinian did not have a relevant or politically practical impact until the Oslo Accords?






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> This was a war of choice for Israel.



Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."

These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.

The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe.  In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US.  The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany.  - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.

That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."
> 
> These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.
> 
> The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe.  In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US.  The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany.  - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.
> 
> That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Not surprised that you don't know what happened.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *PREFACE*: I'll be very open and honest upfront. I could only get through the first eleven and a half minutes into the presentation. And in that first eleven minutes (+) the essence was a thesis on the ethical issues that expressing emotional outbursts and utterances in a string; like following the repetitive beads of a Dominican Rosary.  They make the same set of complaints and accusations broken by an _ad hominem_ or a breakdown of logic.  Then they start over.  They use new phrases to describe the same conditions to make it sound as if it were unrepetitive.  One of my favorites was the "Palestinian Resistance Trust."  And the accusations and complaints are riddled with terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" when in fact none of these terms fit the ground truth and reality of the situation.  Thus these accusations cannot be either true or false.  It like a precious work of art • perfectly honest people appreciate _Mona Lisa_ (_Leonardo da Vinci__ 1503_) to varying degrees - and some _(like myself) _not at all.
> 
> *BLUF*: When I was in High School, during football season, there was this ritual called a pep rally before every game.    In my day, we had the worse team ever.  But after a pep rally - you would have thought we were the State Champions.  These little Pro-Palestinian videos are very much like a Pep Rally for the State Sponsor of Palestinian Terrorism *(**as defined by the EU**)*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Many of the terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" are used for sensationalism and shock value.  The Gaza Strip engineered their position and the consequences that were an outcome of their violence.
> 
> Remove the element of sympathy and you wash away the principal edge of support.
> 
> Remember (what is often forgotten and the pro-Palestinians never mention), each attack by the (so-called) Resistance violation under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) → "protected persons" (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the "Occupying Power" (Israelis) are subject to prosecution by the Occupation Power.
> 
> This is not up for debate, it is the law *(Article 68 GCIV)*.  It does not require interpretation.  Each Incidiary Device released, each rocket or mortar fired, each incursion into Israeli Sovereign Territory, is a violation of Customary and IHL.  Whereas a defensive response by the Israelis to the violence incited by the Arab Palestinian Leadership [_a violation of International Humanitarian Law • Article 20 - __*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__ (CCPR)_] is taken to secure the Israeli Citizens acts of aggression.
> 
> No pro-Palestinian Pep Rally, riot or march is going to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are you saying that the Palestinians cannot respond to Israel's aggression?
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Israel cannot respond to a Palestinian aggression ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."
> 
> These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.
> 
> The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe.  In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US.  The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany.  - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.
> 
> That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surprised that you don't know what happened.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has every single one of his Palestinian lies refuted 20 times a day . Don’t you get tired of losing EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*(QUESTION)*

Who says it doesn't work?



P F Tinmore said:


> The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.


*(COMMENT)*

That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact.  If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Israel start history in the middle?
Click to expand...

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *PREFACE*: I'll be very open and honest upfront. I could only get through the first eleven and a half minutes into the presentation. And in that first eleven minutes (+) the essence was a thesis on the ethical issues that expressing emotional outbursts and utterances in a string; like following the repetitive beads of a Dominican Rosary.  They make the same set of complaints and accusations broken by an _ad hominem_ or a breakdown of logic.  Then they start over.  They use new phrases to describe the same conditions to make it sound as if it were unrepetitive.  One of my favorites was the "Palestinian Resistance Trust."  And the accusations and complaints are riddled with terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" when in fact none of these terms fit the ground truth and reality of the situation.  Thus these accusations cannot be either true or false.  It like a precious work of art • perfectly honest people appreciate _Mona Lisa_ (_Leonardo da Vinci__ 1503_) to varying degrees - and some _(like myself) _not at all.
> 
> *BLUF*: When I was in High School, during football season, there was this ritual called a pep rally before every game.    In my day, we had the worse team ever.  But after a pep rally - you would have thought we were the State Champions.  These little Pro-Palestinian videos are very much like a Pep Rally for the State Sponsor of Palestinian Terrorism *(**as defined by the EU**)*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Many of the terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" are used for sensationalism and shock value.  The Gaza Strip engineered their position and the consequences that were an outcome of their violence.
> 
> Remove the element of sympathy and you wash away the principal edge of support.
> 
> Remember (what is often forgotten and the pro-Palestinians never mention), each attack by the (so-called) Resistance violation under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) → "protected persons" (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the "Occupying Power" (Israelis) are subject to prosecution by the Occupation Power.
> 
> This is not up for debate, it is the law *(Article 68 GCIV)*.  It does not require interpretation.  Each Incidiary Device released, each rocket or mortar fired, each incursion into Israeli Sovereign Territory, is a violation of Customary and IHL.  Whereas a defensive response by the Israelis to the violence incited by the Arab Palestinian Leadership [_a violation of International Humanitarian Law • Article 20 - __*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__ (CCPR)_] is taken to secure the Israeli Citizens acts of aggression.
> 
> No pro-Palestinian Pep Rally, riot or march is going to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are you saying that the Palestinians cannot respond to Israel's aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that Israel cannot respond to a Palestinian aggression ?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Who says it doesn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact.  If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Israel start history in the middle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?
Click to expand...

To confuse low IQ Zionists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."
> 
> These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.
> 
> The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe.  In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US.  The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany.  - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.
> 
> That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surprised that you don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who has every single one of his Palestinian lies refuted 20 times a day . Don’t you get tired of losing EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ?
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Who says it doesn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact.  If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
Click to expand...

Except that Israel has no desire for the deaths of children as an inevitable consequence of Islamic terrorists waging war using civilians as shields. 

The islamic terrorists openly announce their intention to use civilians as 'martyrs' with the near daily glorification of death in the service of islamist ideology.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Israel start history in the middle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To confuse low IQ Zionists.
Click to expand...

Another of your failures.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Israel start history in the middle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To confuse low IQ Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another of your failures.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you feel that way.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan rising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  (See *Posting # 1607*)
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a war of choice for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month
> 
> 
> The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month.  The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field.  In response, it said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Israel start history in the middle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To confuse low IQ Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another of your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand why you feel that way.
Click to expand...

I knew that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Free Speech & the Right to Protest (Part 6 of 8)​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Who says it doesn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact.  If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you suppose this wasn't the goal,
and desperate for a victory pose...






Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the Jihadis who signed the ceasefire?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said. 



			
				rylah said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?


*(COMMENT)*

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted. 

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

You are sidestepping my post.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are sidestepping my post.
Click to expand...

Every single one of your posts is sidestepping


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are sidestepping my post.
Click to expand...

OH Hell...  Just what did I sidestep?

R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are sidestepping my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH Hell...  Just what did I sidestep?
> 
> R
Click to expand...

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are sidestepping my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH Hell...  Just what did I sidestep?
> 
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
Click to expand...


I just wonder, do you repeat this mantra to convince yourself it was worth
to sacrifice hundreds of Gazans -  or vice versa?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
> they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie _breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements_).  One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short.  If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
> 
> In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are sidestepping my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH Hell...  Just what did I sidestep?
> 
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
Click to expand...

A ceasefire has the result of stopping death and property destruction. It seems you're OK with a shooting war continuimg in the hope that one more Israeli might be killed, even at the expense of many dead Pallys. What a courageous position to take from your position of safety of the Great Satan..


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF:  * A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."



P F Tinmore said:


> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.


*(COMMENT)*

What establishes "need?"

In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:  * A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What establishes "need?"
> 
> In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:  * A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What establishes "need?"
> 
> In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.
Click to expand...



And FACT IS - the rockets stopped.

Then  why would Hamas need  that ceasefire?
Was sacrificing hundreds of Gazans what Jihadis call a victory against Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF:  * I don't believe your Premise is correct. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.


*(COMMENT)*

I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:

◈   As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
✦  To protect the citizenry.   ​✦  To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.​✦  To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.​​◈  I believe that the political _(international level) _is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.
✦  That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.​✦  To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.​✦  To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature.   ​Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.​✦  That IDF neutralization operation _(whose partial or total destruction and capture)_ offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.​
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds.  This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. 




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:  * I don't believe your Premise is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:
> 
> ◈   As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
> ✦  To protect the citizenry.   ​✦  To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.​✦  To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.​​◈  I believe that the political _(international level) _is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.
> ✦  That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.​✦  To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.​✦  To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature.   ​Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.​✦  That IDF neutralization operation _(whose partial or total destruction and capture)_ offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.​
> Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds.  This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...


I think we should view in context of the negative reactions from the Arab world Hamas recently drew to itself in the last round, they're desperate to convince that death and destruction in Gaza was worth murdering 10 Israelis and a Qatari handout...

Hamas is actually losing support in the Arab world,
the image is rather of narcissistic oligarch pigs...



The above gone viral, receipts of Hamas spending on hotels abroad,
during the recent confrontation  - one of receipts above $1 million,
of which *$326,000 on massages and "other services",*
and that's only one room, in a word - Jihad...


----------



## RoccoR

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:  * I don't believe your Premise is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:

◈   As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
✦  To protect the citizenry.   ​✦  To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.​✦  To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.​​◈  I believe that the political _(international level) _is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.
✦  That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.​✦  To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.​✦  To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature.   ​Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.​✦  That IDF neutralization operation _(whose partial or total destruction and capture)_ offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.​
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds.  This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.




_Most Respectfully,
R_
[/QUOTE]


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Alienation of Palestinian Americans in U.S. Politics & Media​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## harmonica

..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
'''unindustrious'''
lazy
murdering their own and also others 
etc etc 








						Black September - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

harmonica said:


> ..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
> '''unindustrious'''
> lazy
> murdering their own and also others
> etc etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



No they're not,
they only use, i.e. incite African Americans to further their Islamist agenda.









						Elder: Black History Month: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade in Africa?
					

As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:




					www.standard.net
				




Hamas followers here have no problem to *call Arabs who support Israel by the N-word,*
look closer, and* You will not find Africans ever allowed in any of Pali governments.*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  The *al Jazeera Video News Article* opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation.  And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."  



P F Tinmore said:


>



*(COMMENT)*

According to the _*al-Jazeera News Article*_, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the _*General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43*_ • 3 December 1982.

_"Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"​​Two important points spring out here.

 ◈  A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.​​◈  A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.​
UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal *expressions of the opinion or will* of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization.  General Assembly Resolutions *are not binding* on its membership.  Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording).  An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in *Chapter VII of the Charter*.  Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with *Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter*.  Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
Article 51​*Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations*, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​
Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians.  You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments.  Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."

*UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations*​Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​
*(CLOSING WITH)*

The *entire European Union* considers HAMAS a terrorist organization_ (from the Official Journal of the European Union)_.

UN *Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368* (2001)  "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,"  does speak to the matter.  

Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.

◈  'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'​◈ * 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'*​◈  'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’​◈  ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’​◈  'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)​





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  The *al Jazeera Video News Article* opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation.  And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> According to the _*al-Jazeera News Article*_, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the _*General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43*_ • 3 December 1982.
> 
> _"Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"​​Two important points spring out here.
> 
> ◈  A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.​​◈  A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.​
> UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal *expressions of the opinion or will* of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization.  General Assembly Resolutions *are not binding* on its membership.  Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording).  An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in *Chapter VII of the Charter*.  Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with *Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter*.  Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
> Article 51​*Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations*, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​
> Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians.  You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments.  Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
> 
> *UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations*​Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​
> *(CLOSING WITH)*
> 
> The *entire European Union* considers HAMAS a terrorist organization_ (from the Official Journal of the European Union)_.
> 
> UN *Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368* (2001)  "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,"  does speak to the matter.
> 
> Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
> 
> ◈  'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'​◈ * 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'*​◈  'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’​◈  ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’​◈  'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Nakba denier. You still believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Top of Mind: Palestinian Analysts On Unfolding Scenes of Protest & Devastation​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  The *al Jazeera Video News Article* opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation.  And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> According to the _*al-Jazeera News Article*_, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the _*General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43*_ • 3 December 1982.
> 
> _"Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"​​Two important points spring out here.
> 
> ◈  A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.​​◈  A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.​
> UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal *expressions of the opinion or will* of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization.  General Assembly Resolutions *are not binding* on its membership.  Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording).  An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in *Chapter VII of the Charter*.  Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with *Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter*.  Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
> Article 51​*Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations*, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​
> Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians.  You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments.  Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
> 
> *UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations*​Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​
> *(CLOSING WITH)*
> 
> The *entire European Union* considers HAMAS a terrorist organization_ (from the Official Journal of the European Union)_.
> 
> UN *Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368* (2001)  "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,"  does speak to the matter.
> 
> Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
> 
> ◈  'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'​◈ * 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'*​◈  'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’​◈  ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’​◈  'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nakba denier. You still believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.
Click to expand...

They are.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  I'm sure you could find someone in the USMB membership that would deny the events of May 1948 took place.  I just can't imagine who.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Nakba denier. You still believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.


*(COMMENT)*

Now, are the events of 14/15 May 1948 truly a catastrophe?  Did the creation of the Jewish National Home in the State of Israel become the cause of damage or suffering? *(RHETORICAL)*   Were the events the great disaster the Arab Palestinians make it out to be?  *(RHETORICAL)* 

SHORT Answer:  No*!*

The cascade failure of the Regional Peace was not the creation of the Jewish State as recommended by the UN, but rather the child-like temper tantrum of Hostilities that followed, and the gains the Arab League thought they might acquire as a result mixed with a grab for power, wealth, and notoriety.  Whatever the reasoning for the events of May 15th it was not a case of nobility, integrity, heroism, or honor.  

As a matter of fact, the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians never demonstrated an observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by the Arab States.  No, the solution to all disputes by the Arab Palestinians was armed struggle.  It was an ill-fated option for armed struggle in which they secured an outcome worse than each of the preceding armed struggles.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Did the creation of the Jewish National Home in the State of Israel become the cause of damage or suffering?


Their country was stolen/destroyed. Most of them became forever refugees or IDPs. Their life has been shit ever since.

And you don't see a problem. 

The Nakba and the 1948 war were two different things.


----------



## harmonica

rylah said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
> '''unindustrious'''
> lazy
> murdering their own and also others
> etc etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not,
> they only use, i.e. incite African Americans to further their Islamist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elder: Black History Month: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade in Africa?
> 
> 
> As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.standard.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas followers here have no problem to *call Arabs who support Israel by the N-word,*
> look closer, and* You will not find Africans ever allowed in any of Pali governments.*
Click to expand...

yes they are--they are shitheads/criminals/etc  just like the Pals


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​


RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF: * I'm confused.

*(QUESTION)*

Is *General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) *actual law?

When did it go into force?






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Is *General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) *actual law?
> 
> When did it go into force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> I'm confused.


Indeed!

Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Is *General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) *actual law?
> 
> When did it go into force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

You should watch this video. It could answer many of your questions.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Is *General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) *actual law?
> 
> When did it go into force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should watch this video. It could answer many of your questions.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you should watch the video. Indeed, It does nothing but waste the viewers time. Why would you expect others to waste their time?

You know that GA opinions are, indeed, opinions, right?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Is *General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) *actual law?
> 
> When did it go into force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
Click to expand...

Indeed. No it was not.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.



*(REQUEST)*

Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.







_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians: In a two state solution, do you expect the right of return to Israel?​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians: In a two state solution, do you expect the right of return to Israel?​


There is no right of return.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.
Click to expand...

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,

You never give a citation.  International law has a citation, an ICC Article, an ICJ Judgment, a Council Refedrncde, A UN Resolution, or an International Convention Name.

Just Cite the Original Source Law that was in force or is in force, so we all can examine it.  But don't give us another worthless video.  Just a one-line citation.  I promise no one will accuse you of spamming._





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.

The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 2 | SOAS​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Confirmation there is no right of return.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,

*Let me say upfront:  I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law.  This is my opinion.*_

*BLUF: * Well, hell.  Another lengthy video.  That tells me that you really don't know the answer.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.


*(REMEMBERING)*

This is international and is binding:

PART 3.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
*Article 24   Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*

_Non-retroactivity ratione personae_

No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for *conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.*
In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.

_*(SHORT ANSWER)*_

*NO!*  UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194 (III) → IS NOT binding on the membership and is NOT International Law.

*(COMMENT)*

The Professor of Law is either relying upon pre-WWI (The Great War) unwritten but (assumed to be ) customary law. - OR - The Professor is relying on post-1948 War (NEW) Law of which the two centerpieces are;

◈      *Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties* (1978)​​◈      *Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts* (2001)​
These references come well after the 1967 Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper sneak attack of 1973.  One of these is nearly a decades AFTER the 1948 events and one comes a half-century later.

Now there is another issue here that needs to be expressed.

United Nations Charter, Chapter I:​Purposes and Principles​Article 2​The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles

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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​
The Professor_ (in his opening monolog)_ acknowledged that the initial hostilities began in 1947 and that approximately 300,000 Arab Palestinians were displaced - as he put- Forceably Expelled or Taken Flight.  And that the pre-15 May 1948 was a Non-International Armed Conflict _(as he says a Civil War)_.   That is a conflict within one jurisdiction - outside the authority of the Charter (*supra*).

As another Challenge, the Professor is salting the discussion with Customary Law in the Western sense.  That is, for the purposes of this discussion, the Customary Rule of Law should be of Middle Eastern origin and NOT Western European or the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire.  The customary practices of Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa are much different.

While the western late 20th Century culture may be much more liberal on the side of the Plaintiff (Arab Palestinians) the customary Regional combatants _(supra_) is much different.

◈  Is it customary for Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa to offer compensation or restitution such as outlined in A/RES/194 (III)?​​◈  Is it customary for Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa to require victorious forces to return capture territory as outlined in A/RES/194 (III)?​
The Ottoman Empire reached all of North Africa, down the Red Sea to Yemen, and up and into Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria.  Not to mention the entirety of the territories all the way to the Perian frontier.  Explain to me just what the Customary Rule of Law was pertaining to war reparations, Right-of-Return once expelled, returning private property and territory to the defeated or displaced.  The entire Arab/Bedouin Irregular Force on the side of the British Empire looted every city, train, caravan, and fortuitous they destroyed.  How did Customary and Regional Law apply?

The presentation was laced with all sorts of "appeal to" fairness, justice, and equality.  Let's be reasonable here.  What really was the historical application to these Arab Palestinian demands be if it were adjudicated under Arab Rules of the late 19th Century?  Let's get real_!

*(≈Ω)*

You still did not answer the question.  What is the original source *law* (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based._





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And that the pre-15 May 1948 was a Non-International Armed Conflict _(as he says a Civil War)_.


I take exception to the term civil war. I think it is one of those terms that people have heard a gazillion times so they assume it to be true. It is not. A civil war would be two groups of Palestinians with differences. That isn't what happened. It was an attack on the Palestinians by foreign colonial settlers.

That and the fact that the Nakba and the 1948 war were two different things change a lot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You still did not answer the question. What is the original source *law* (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.


The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,

Let me say upfront: I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law. This is my opinion._

BLUF: Yes I understood what he said.  He does not cite an actual original source.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still did not answer the question. What is the original source *law* (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
> 
> 
> 
> The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.
Click to expand...

_*(COMMENT)*_

And as I explained in my Posting.  *The Professor's explanation is NOT an answer.*   In fact, in a round-about way, the Professor acknowledges that point.  There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948.  It nearly all comes from assumptions of Law that come well after the events.  Most of what he says - that is binding or law comes after these specific events.

The claims made by the Arab Palestinian come from  Western European Customary practice and the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire.  And that cannot be used because it is not based on or derivative of the Customary practice of the Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia, Arabia, and North Africa.

I believe you and the Professor do a grave disservice to the Arab Palestinian cause and International Law by making such claims.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still did not answer the question. What is the original source *law* (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
> 
> 
> 
> The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948.


OK, but they still cannot return. That is a today problem. Some of these things, like state succession, are from the Hague Convention of 1907. You just weren't paying attention. Here is another interpretation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF: Yes I watched this video when you first posted it.  But there is a flaw in the log.

PART 3.  *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 22
_Nullum crimen sine lege_

A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
*The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.*
This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
You, the International Courts and Tribunals, or the Israeli Supreme Court can not just read something into the law that was not there.  Read the bold portion carefully.  And then tell me what citation in the Hague Regulation of 1907 applies to the plaintiff's claim.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they still cannot return. That is a today problem. Some of these things, like state succession, are from the Hague Convention of 1907. You just weren't paying attention. Here is another interpretation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Professor is correct.  The Israeli Supreme Court did make a rule, but it was made in 2006.  And from that ruling, I'll give you a couple of excerpts:  (_I went and looked it up for you._)



			
				Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said:
			
		

> ◈  More specifically, according to the Court, the following are applicable to the current armed conflict: the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary provisions of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977).
> 
> ◈  Although Israel is not a party to the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the Court determined that the principle according to which civilians who participate directly in hostilities are not protected (Article 51(3) of the Additional Protocol) is mandatory customary law. That is, when a civilian fulfills the role of a combatant, he loses the protection afforded to civilians. Such a civilian is exposed to the dangers of an attack as is a combatant, but is not entitled to the rights afforded a combatant (e.g. recognition as a "prisoner of war"). According to Article 51(3) of the First Protocol, “civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”
> 
> ◈  In the final analysis, the Israel Supreme Court adopted an interpretation of customary international law governing international armed conflicts, ruling that the protection afforded to civilians from military attacks is not extended to terrorists who directly participate in hostilities, this for the duration of such participation. An attack on such a civilian, even if such an attack results in death, is permissible, but only if a less harmful means (detention) cannot be employed, and subject to the condition that any incidental harm caused to innocent civilians meets the requirement of proportionality.
> 
> *SOURCE:** Israel Supreme Court decision on targeting terrorist operatives** • **20 Dec 2006*



Yes, the Court did say what she said.  But the court did not say that it supersedes 
Article 24 - Non-retroactivity (_ratione personae_)(_supra_ *Posting #1676*). In fact, the ruling says that ALL the general principles of criminal law apply.  And that works in several more dramatically opposing ways than the notations I've mentioned.

Now here is something tricky you should think about. →  If International Human Rights Law applies, then the* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) applies to actions since it went into force: 23 March 1976.  The territory formerly under the Mandate - Palestine,  was under the expanse from the Jordan River, came under the Trusteeship System (Article77 UN Carter) - west to the Mediterranean Sea; less Israel (Independent since 15 May 1948).  This means that Article 12(3) CCPR comes into play.




			
				 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
			
		

> *Article 12*
> 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
> 
> 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
> 
> 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions *except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others,* and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
> 
> 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
> 
> *SOURCE*:   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)



It also means that the limitation of Article 49(2) "outside the bounds of the occupied territory" also applies.  To the best of my knowledge, Israel did not facilitate the evacuation of Arab Palestinians outside the territorial demarcations (to another territory).  Is



			
				Fourth Geneva Convention said:
			
		

> *ARTICLE 49* [ • *Link* • ]
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the *displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.* Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
> The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
> The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
> The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.



And the ruling implies that Israel should follow the *Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees*.  Most of the individuals claiming the Right to Return are descendants and not covered by the definition of Refugees.

All these questions and more are issues that need to be addressed before a Right of Return Programs could even be considered.

*(SIDEBAR)*

The esteemed speakers in these snapshot videos seldom discuss Issues such as this in a way that does not erode public confidence.  While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) still has some credibility and confidence that remains with the public, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has exactly the opposite.  They simply do not hold the trust in the public to act in accordance with the cannons and ethics that render the appearance of professional responsibility.  

In the case filed by the State of Palestine, which routinely violates the International Covent against the incitement to violence and the financing of terrorist activities.  It appears to be the case that the Court itself is adding and abetting the HAMAS _(Islamic Resistance Movement) _which has been designated by the members of the European Union as a terrorist activity.

The Court → in its decisions making process found that its "territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem."  They have already made a decision and are just going through the motions to give the appearance of a valid judicial process.  The entire investigative process and the procedures of the court are flawed when they openly consider HAMAS as a victim as opposed to what they really are.

Be very cautious of what confidence you place in the ICC.  They are likely to set the conditions for a necessary military resolution that will not be pretty.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Are they still whining about the Lebanese refusal to allow a right of return?


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

The Role of Decolonial Feminism in the Fight for Palestine with Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Lara Elborno and Michael Schirtzer join The Electronic Intifada Podcast to talk about the first few days of the US-backed Israeli attacks on Gaza


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Fatah lost the elections. Why is it ruling the West Bank?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why The Media Can’t Tell The Truth On Israel & Palestine | The Bastani Factor​


----------



## P F Tinmore

​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Why The Media Can’t Tell The Truth On Israel & Palestine | The Bastani Factor​


Your silly conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

A lot of gay and lesbian bars in “Palestine”? Lol

So tolerant


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


>


Just to be fair to Joe Rogan.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It appears to be the case that the Court itself is adding and abetting the HAMAS _(Islamic Resistance Movement) _which has been designated by the members of the European Union as a terrorist activity.


The court does not use the name calling list.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza Ceasefire: Band-Aid for Failed US Diplomacy - 20 May 2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

History is Relevant: The Israeli New History and its Legacy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?

A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Winds of Change in the Grassroots & Congress on Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._

◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
​


P F Tinmore said:


> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.


*(COMMENT)*

But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?
Click to expand...

Yes, but how can the Palestinians defend themselves from Hamas & the PA???


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rep. Rashida Tlaib Confronts President Biden about Gaza Crisis on the Tarmac​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?
Click to expand...



RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  They do have the "Right of Self-Defense."  But they do not have the "Right of Assault."



> So, do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?


*(THUMBNAIL COMMENT)*

Once an exchange of fire ceases, that event is over.  

•   If the Arab Palestinians initiate a new exchange of hostile fire, that is an illegal assault.  The Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​​•   If the Arab Palestinians incite the populace to initiate hostile acts, that is illegal and the Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​
Clearly, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire on 20 May.   And just as clearly, the Arab Palestinians set in motion the incendiary balloons launched into Israel from Gaza (*Rule 85*. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person _hors de combat)_.  This triggered an Israeli response. 

The Arab Palestinians cannot open hostilities (calling it self-defense) and not expect a response from the Israelis.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  They do have the "Right of Self-Defense."  But they do not have the "Right of Assault."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(THUMBNAIL COMMENT)*
> 
> Once an exchange of fire ceases, that event is over.
> 
> •   If the Arab Palestinians initiate a new exchange of hostile fire, that is an illegal assault.  The Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​​•   If the Arab Palestinians incite the populace to initiate hostile acts, that is illegal and the Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​
> Clearly, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire on 20 May.   And just as clearly, the Arab Palestinians set in motion the incendiary balloons launched into Israel from Gaza (*Rule 85*. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person _hors de combat)_.  This triggered an Israeli response.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot open hostilities (calling it self-defense) and not expect a response from the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Israel continued its aggression after the ceasefire.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  They do have the "Right of Self-Defense."  But they do not have the "Right of Assault."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(THUMBNAIL COMMENT)*
> 
> Once an exchange of fire ceases, that event is over.
> 
> •   If the Arab Palestinians initiate a new exchange of hostile fire, that is an illegal assault.  The Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​​•   If the Arab Palestinians incite the populace to initiate hostile acts, that is illegal and the Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​
> Clearly, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire on 20 May.   And just as clearly, the Arab Palestinians set in motion the incendiary balloons launched into Israel from Gaza (*Rule 85*. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person _hors de combat)_.  This triggered an Israeli response.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot open hostilities (calling it self-defense) and not expect a response from the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel continued its aggression after the ceasefire.
Click to expand...

The Islamic terrorists started fires in Israel because of Israel's aggression?

You fall down and bump your head a lot, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Three Perspectives on Anti-Zionism: Miko Peled, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, and Professor Norton Mezvinsky​
​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

The sabotage campaign against Palestine solidarity with Max Blumenthal | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

What will the Jerusalem vote mean for US foreign policy?​


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Everyone_ (individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)_ has the Right of Self-Defense.  There need only be an assault against "anyone of the everyone" _(either individually, collectively, culturally, economically, or etc)._
> 
> ◈→    *Assault *  To attack physically; to threaten or attempt to cause injury to someone else.   Assault made worse than simple assault by​the addition of aggravating circumstances, such as extreme indifference to human life or the use of a deadly weapon.
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> A - Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But application need not be explained here because all you hear is: "Ah, bah, bah, ah,ah. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do Palestinans have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Right of Self-Defense
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  They do have the "Right of Self-Defense."  But they do not have the "Right of Assault."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(THUMBNAIL COMMENT)*
> 
> Once an exchange of fire ceases, that event is over.
> 
> •   If the Arab Palestinians initiate a new exchange of hostile fire, that is an illegal assault.  The Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​​•   If the Arab Palestinians incite the populace to initiate hostile acts, that is illegal and the Israelis have the Right to Defend themselves.​
> Clearly, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire on 20 May.   And just as clearly, the Arab Palestinians set in motion the incendiary balloons launched into Israel from Gaza (*Rule 85*. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person _hors de combat)_.  This triggered an Israeli response.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot open hostilities (calling it self-defense) and not expect a response from the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel continued its aggression after the ceasefire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Islamic terrorists started fires in Israel because of Israel's aggression?
> 
> You fall down and bump your head a lot, right?
Click to expand...

And like usual, he disappeared.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Does the Vote in the UN actually change the location of the Capitol?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF:  Old News • I'm not sure why P F Tinmore posted this old Al-Jazeera News Article.



> A rebuke for Washington from both Allies and Adversaries alike.


*(COMMENT)*

No matter how the UN votes on the issue, the vote cannot change the actual ground truth.

The fact of the matter is,  

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in Jerusalem
The Knesset is in Jerusalem
The Prime Minister's Office is in Jerusalem
The President's Office is in Jerusalem
If Jerusalem is where the official Embassy business is performed, well that is where the capital is.  It is as simple as that.  You don't need a Super Computer to figure that out.  

A paper vote in the UN does not change the actual reality.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF: * You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REQUEST)*
> 
> Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.
Click to expand...

For those who are not familiar with Tinmore bullshit tactics, here is w prime example:

Rocco simply asked Tinmore to provide a link to back up his post. Tinmore, with his back to the wall, claims that he has already done so many times.

Another one of Tinmore’s tactics in a situation like this would have him providing a link that is completely irrelevant to the claim he had made . Ohh, the desperation of Pro Pally’s !!!!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


False premise. There is no right of return.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.

There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.

The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.

Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:

_*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_  NO!​
Why don't you use your own words?






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
Click to expand...

How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
Click to expand...










						Abbas, on visit to Saudi Arabia, seeks urgent financial aid amid PA’s grave economic crisis
					

Palestinian leader tells King Abdullah the PA won't be able to pay its employees' salaries as Ramadan approaches




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with King Abdullah in the Red Sea city of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia Friday, and asked the leader for urgent financial assistance.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas, on visit to Saudi Arabia, seeks urgent financial aid amid PA’s grave economic crisis
> 
> 
> Palestinian leader tells King Abdullah the PA won't be able to pay its employees' salaries as Ramadan approaches
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timesofisrael.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with King Abdullah in the Red Sea city of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia Friday, and asked the leader for urgent financial assistance.
Click to expand...


I will preemptively respond for P F Tinmore. 

1. Nice duck
2. Israeli propaganda bullshit
3. The new states
4. Link?
5. That didn't address my post


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?
Click to expand...

Not needed without Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: A century ago, the Council of the League of Nations maintained that when a government reached the "stage of development where their existence as independent able to stand alone" that would have signaled the birth of a nation. Since 1988, when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence, the Palestinians have not been able to establish that government stature.


P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not needed without Israel.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

For the last decade, Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has been (literally) panhandling for donations to make payroll.  A government that is dependent on donor nation for subsistence is not a government at all.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: A century ago, the Council of the League of Nations maintained that when a government reached the "stage of development where their existence as independent able to stand alone" that would have signaled the birth of a nation. Since 1988, when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence, the Palestinians have not been able to establish that government stature.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not needed without Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the last decade, Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has been (literally) panhandling for donations to make payroll.  A government that is dependent on donor nation for subsistence is not a government at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> For the last decade, Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has been (literally) panhandling for donations to make payroll. A government that is dependent on donor nation for subsistence is not a government at all.


You are sidestepping my post. You are talking about today without historical context.

Israel has stolen, bombed, or bulldozed most of Palestine's assets. Of course they are going to need aid.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not needed without Israel.
Click to expand...

Your comments tend to typify the victim mentality that the Pallys use to defend their failures. You're hoping to use Israel as an excuse to sidestep those attributes that cause Pallys to be afflicted with the same failures shared by so much of the Arab-Moslem world. 

Consider, Your attitudes reflect the ''it's all the fault of the Jews'', where in just a few decades, Israel has managed to build a world-class economy and a modern, parliamentary democracy amidst a portion of the globe that has been burdened by the boat anchor of Islamism.

*From a sidebar found at Post-Gazette.com, (from 2007, virtually nothing has changed)*

The United Nations Development Program, in a report published last year, described in often painful detail some of the factors that have contributed to the decline of science and the rise of extremism in Arab societies. Among them are:

- Increases in average income have been lower in the Arab world than anywhere else for 20 years, except for the poorest African countries. "If such trends continue...it will take the average Arab citizen 140 years to double his or her income, whole other regions are set to achieve that level in a matter of less than 10 years," the report noted. One in 5 Arabs lives on less than $2 a day.

- Arab unemployment is the highest in the developing world.

- Surveys show more than half of young Arabs want to leave their countries and live in theUnited States or other industrialized countries where opportunities are better.

- The Arab brain drain is the world's worst, with about 25 percent of new graduates in science, medicine and engineering emigrating each year.

- About 1 in 4 Arab adults can neither read nor write. This is a particular problem among Arab women, 50 per cent of whom are illiterate. Many children do not attend school.

- The quality of education has declined, with many schools teaching mainly interpretations of the Koran, rather than other knowledge or skills.

- Less than 0.6 per cent of Arabs use the Internet and barely 1.2 percent have access to a personal computer. There are 18 computers per 1,000 Arabs, compared to the global average of 78.3.

- During the entire 20th century, fewer than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic -- equivalent to the number translated into Spanish in a single year. Religious books account for 17 per cent of new publications in Arab countries, compared to a world average of 5 per cent.

- Censorship stifles ideas, information and innovation. Numerous censors review book manuscripts, each with the power to edit text or demand revisions.

_"_" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Local, National & World News
5/27/2007 - Article Ref: PG0404-2278




How does it feel to be the forever victim of your own failures?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Right of Return
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This shot video is just a claim.  I have a Right to have a Million Dollars (Right of Wealth).  But by the same token, No one is obligated to give me a Million Dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* (UDHR) of DEC 1948, is NOT law.  It was never brought into force.  But even if it was International Law, or the backbone to Customary Law, it still come after the outbreak of hostilities in MAY 1948.  It is International Law that a law cannot be retroactively applied.
> 
> There are *9 CORE International Human Rights instruments*, but the oldest of these was adopted in 1965.  Nor is the UDHR considered a *Universal Human Rights Instrument* as listed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  You should take notice that in both cases - the UDHR is NOT listed in the core.  It is a non-binding reference document.
> 
> The actual binding requirement that is referred to as the Right of Return (RoR) is found in Article 12, *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*  (CCPR), having an entry into force date of 23 MAR 1976.  And Article 12 of the CCPR varies from Article 13 of the UDHR.
> 
> Further, in 1948, the Israelis may have displaced Arabs, but they did not move the Arab to another country.  They were moved into the partition earmarked as the Arab State in the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly in NOV 1947.  And as for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), the application used in the little video was from paragraph 1:
> 
> _*ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]  Excerpt*_​​Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​
> ◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs from occupied territory to the territory of any other country? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​​◈   Did Israel actually displace the Arabs protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory? _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO!​
> Why don't you use your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians do not ask anyone to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much welfare money has the international community given to Fatah and Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not needed without Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments tend to typify the victim mentality that the Pallys use to defend their failures. You're hoping to use Israel as an excuse to sidestep those attributes that cause Pallys to be afflicted with the same failures shared by so much of the Arab-Moslem world.
> 
> Consider, Your attitudes reflect the ''it's all the fault of the Jews'', where in just a few decades, Israel has managed to build a world-class economy and a modern, parliamentary democracy amidst a portion of the globe that has been burdened by the boat anchor of Islamism.
> 
> *From a sidebar found at Post-Gazette.com, (from 2007, virtually nothing has changed)*
> 
> The United Nations Development Program, in a report published last year, described in often painful detail some of the factors that have contributed to the decline of science and the rise of extremism in Arab societies. Among them are:
> 
> - Increases in average income have been lower in the Arab world than anywhere else for 20 years, except for the poorest African countries. "If such trends continue...it will take the average Arab citizen 140 years to double his or her income, whole other regions are set to achieve that level in a matter of less than 10 years," the report noted. One in 5 Arabs lives on less than $2 a day.
> 
> - Arab unemployment is the highest in the developing world.
> 
> - Surveys show more than half of young Arabs want to leave their countries and live in theUnited States or other industrialized countries where opportunities are better.
> 
> - The Arab brain drain is the world's worst, with about 25 percent of new graduates in science, medicine and engineering emigrating each year.
> 
> - About 1 in 4 Arab adults can neither read nor write. This is a particular problem among Arab women, 50 per cent of whom are illiterate. Many children do not attend school.
> 
> - The quality of education has declined, with many schools teaching mainly interpretations of the Koran, rather than other knowledge or skills.
> 
> - Less than 0.6 per cent of Arabs use the Internet and barely 1.2 percent have access to a personal computer. There are 18 computers per 1,000 Arabs, compared to the global average of 78.3.
> 
> - During the entire 20th century, fewer than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic -- equivalent to the number translated into Spanish in a single year. Religious books account for 17 per cent of new publications in Arab countries, compared to a world average of 5 per cent.
> 
> - Censorship stifles ideas, information and innovation. Numerous censors review book manuscripts, each with the power to edit text or demand revisions.
> 
> _"_" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Local, National & World News
> 5/27/2007 - Article Ref: PG0404-2278
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the forever victim of your own failures?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> where in just a few decades, Israel has managed to build a world-class economy


Who stole, bombed, and bulldozed their stuff?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> - Less than 0.6 per cent of Arabs use the Internet and barely 1.2 percent have access to a personal computer. There are 18 computers per 1,000 Arabs, compared to the global average of 78.3.


Moreover, the percentage of individuals (10 years and above) who used the internet from anywhere reached 71% in Palestine (74% in the West Bank and 65% in Gaza Strip).  Also, data showed that the percentage of male internet users reached 72% compared to 69% of females. It is noted that 96% of individuals (10 years and above) used the internet via a Smartphone, whereas the percentage of individuals (10 years and above) who used the internet via a computer (desktop or laptop) is about 22% and 10% used the internet through a tablet.  Furthermore, results showed that the highest percentage of those who use the internet are young people in the age group (18-29) with a percentage of (86%).





__





						PCBS |   PCBS and MTIT:  issue a joint press release about of the World Telecommunication and Information Society Day 05/2020.
					

PCBS  State of Palestine Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics




					www.pcbs.gov.ps


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> - About 1 in 4 Arab adults can neither read nor write. This is a particular problem among Arab women, 50 per cent of whom are illiterate. Many children do not attend school.


In 2018, adult *literacy rate* for *Palestine* was 97.22 %. Adult *literacy rate* of *Palestine* increased from 94.06 % in 2008 to 97.22 % in 2018 growing at an average annual *rate* of 0.37%.

The West Bank and Gaza together *have* 14 *universities*, an open *university* for distance learning, 18 *university colleges* and 20 community *colleges*. ...

Nice attempt at a hit piece though.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> - About 1 in 4 Arab adults can neither read nor write. This is a particular problem among Arab women, 50 per cent of whom are illiterate. Many children do not attend school.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2018, adult *literacy rate* for *Palestine* was 97.22 %. Adult *literacy rate* of *Palestine* increased from 94.06 % in 2008 to 97.22 % in 2018 growing at an average annual *rate* of 0.37%.
> 
> The West Bank and Gaza together *have* 14 *universities*, an open *university* for distance learning, 18 *university colleges* and 20 community *colleges*. ...
> 
> Nice attempt at a hit piece though.
Click to expand...

Another sidestep duck from Tinmore


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> - About 1 in 4 Arab adults can neither read nor write. This is a particular problem among Arab women, 50 per cent of whom are illiterate. Many children do not attend school.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2018, adult *literacy rate* for *Palestine* was 97.22 %. Adult *literacy rate* of *Palestine* increased from 94.06 % in 2008 to 97.22 % in 2018 growing at an average annual *rate* of 0.37%.
> 
> The West Bank and Gaza together *have* 14 *universities*, an open *university* for distance learning, 18 *university colleges* and 20 community *colleges*. ...
> 
> Nice attempt at a hit piece though.
Click to expand...

Gee-had as a curriculum is hardly a marketable skill outside of the Pally territories.

Nice attempt at apologetics for islamic terrorism, though.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Dr. Maha Nassar w/ Lara Friedman on US discourse on Israel/Palestine & Black-Palestinian solidarity​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's War on the Media with Mariam Barghouti & Mona Shtaya​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ceasefire – What Ceasefire? ​On the Ground in Occupied East Jerusalem​


----------



## Hollie

What ceasefire?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Pal’istan 101


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Equating Antizionism With Antisemitism Lets The U.S .Off The Hook With Noura Erakat​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> How Equating Antizionism With Antisemitism Lets The U.S .Off The Hook With Noura Erakat​



Paliwood Oligarchs sure love talking to themselves in an echo chamber.

But no Zionist ever shot a bullet before Arabs expelled the local Jews from the  4 holy cities.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> But no Zionist ever shot a bullet before Arabs expelled the local Jews from all 4 holy cities.


Which Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no Zionist ever shot a bullet before Arabs expelled the local Jews from all 4 holy cities.
> 
> 
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...

These Arabs -

*Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...

*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...

The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> How Equating Antizionism With Antisemitism Lets The U.S .Off The Hook With Noura Erakat​



White supremacy?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​



Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...







*
Q. So what was their excuse for Jihad **against 
the entire MENA region before Israel?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?


Which Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...

These Arabs -

*Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...

*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...

The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873

Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl, 
what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​



Nice duck.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
Click to expand...


What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...

So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Your post had no context.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Challenging Israel's Policy of Legalized Vengeance​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Your post had no context.
Click to expand...

None of your 61 000 posts have any context


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: Two-State Illusion, One-State Solution​A webinar featuring Diana Buttu and Jeff Halper


----------



## P F Tinmore

Past & The Present with Farah Nabulsi​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Akhaduha Mafroosheh with Comedian Amer Zahr​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

The TRUTH about what's going on in PALESTINE. (Gaza, Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem).​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Don't let the door hit you it the ass on the way out.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you it the ass on the way out.
Click to expand...


That laughter doesn't look pitiful at all...

Only question, do you  really know that little,
or just trying to deflect from the content for having no argument?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Your post had no context.
Click to expand...



The usual excuse for your racism,

yet you don't hesitate to blame the conflict, and just about anything on Jews,
despite all the context of Arab violence against the local Jewish community.

But it's up to you, since you're repeating that claim all the time,
to explain the reason for Jihad against the local Jewish community prior to Zionism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

100 Years of Palestinian History & Explaining the Uprising of 2021​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 100 Years of Palestinian History & Explaining the Uprising of 2021​



Is that why all their "history" starts 30 after expelling Jews from all their holy cities,
and waging a wave of pogroms around the Caliphate?

Or why they demand *exclusive Arab domination over the entire Middle East*?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Webinar: Two-State Illusion, One-State Solution​A webinar featuring Diana Buttu and Jeff Halper



She can return to Hijaz,
her admitted ancestral land.

Where, after studying a foreign language abroad,
she can teach fellow Arabs to pronounce _'P-ALESTINE'...

_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you it the ass on the way out.
Click to expand...

Your heroes in the Pally terrorist leadership say precisely that as they pack their bank accounts and while you flail your Pom Poms from the safety of the Great Satan.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Your post had no context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The usual excuse for your racism,
> 
> yet you don't hesitate to blame the conflict, and just about anything on Jews,
> despite all the context of Arab violence against the local Jewish community.
> 
> But it's up to you, since you're repeating that claim all the time,
> to explain the reason for Jihad against the local Jewish community prior to Zionism.
Click to expand...

Not so. Most Jews are good people. It is the Zionists who are the problem.


----------



## Hollie

Apartheid!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Your post had no context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The usual excuse for your racism,
> 
> yet you don't hesitate to blame the conflict, and just about anything on Jews,
> despite all the context of Arab violence against the local Jewish community.
> 
> But it's up to you, since you're repeating that claim all the time,
> to explain the reason for Jihad against the local Jewish community prior to Zionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Most Jews are good people. It is the Zionists who are the problem.
Click to expand...

^^^ accompanied by his heil Hitler salute


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noura Erakat in Conversation with Professor Rashid Khalidi on "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure love your Hamas oligarchs in echochambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Jihad before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These Arabs -
> 
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> Q. So before any Zionist ever shot a bullet, even before Herzl,
> what was the Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  P F Tinmore,  lost on words...
> 
> So what was the  Arab excuse for Jihad against the local Jews before Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Your post had no context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The usual excuse for your racism,
> 
> yet you don't hesitate to blame the conflict, and just about anything on Jews,
> despite all the context of Arab violence against the local Jewish community.
> 
> But it's up to you, since you're repeating that claim all the time,
> to explain the reason for Jihad against the local Jewish community prior to Zionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Most Jews are good people. It is the Zionists who are the problem.
Click to expand...


Oh....so Zionism was the excuse for Jihad against the local Jews - prior to Zionism?

Now I understand,
thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lowkey on the UK's Complicity in Israeli Apartheid & Settler Colonialism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Palestinians Are Rising Up Against the Palestinian Authority - Fadi Quran & Peter Beinart​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Why Palestinians Are Rising Up Against the Palestinian Authority - Fadi Quran & Peter Beinart​





A storm in a teacup.
No one is actually uprising,
they just blow out a spectacle for the optics.

It's just the usual daily tribal gang confrontation,
that they have been continuously involved in Arabia.

The reality is, since the Abrahamic Accords, they've lost much attention and interest,
so their bank accounts have been drying in foreign casinos. But the very same people
Fadi Quran is supposedly criticizing, are the very oligarchs with whom he then divides
95% of the budged that's supposed to serve his people,
and the cycle goes on - it's a business.

The same as you, supposedly "criticizing" the PA,
yet all day long  posting propaganda of all the PA oligarchs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Palestinians Are Rising Up Against the Palestinian Authority - Fadi Quran & Peter Beinart​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A storm in a teacup.
> No one is actually uprising,
> they just blow out a spectacle for the optics.
> 
> It's just the usual daily tribal gang confrontation,
> that they have been continuously involved in Arabia.
> 
> The reality is, since the Abrahamic Accords, they've lost much attention and interest,
> so their bank accounts have been drying in foreign casinos. But the very same people
> Fadi Quran is supposedly criticizing, are the very oligarchs with whom he then divides
> 95% of the budged that's supposed to serve his people,
> and the cycle goes on - it's a business.
> 
> The same as you, supposedly "criticizing" the PA,
> yet all day long  posting propaganda of all the PA oligarchs.
Click to expand...

I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation. 

*IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
*IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.  

*IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​ 
After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.

You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Palestinians Are Rising Up Against the Palestinian Authority - Fadi Quran & Peter Beinart​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A storm in a teacup.
> No one is actually uprising,
> they just blow out a spectacle for the optics.
> 
> It's just the usual daily tribal gang confrontation,
> that they have been continuously involved in Arabia.
> 
> The reality is, since the Abrahamic Accords, they've lost much attention and interest,
> so their bank accounts have been drying in foreign casinos. But the very same people
> Fadi Quran is supposedly criticizing, are the very oligarchs with whom he then divides
> 95% of the budged that's supposed to serve his people,
> and the cycle goes on - it's a business.
> 
> The same as you, supposedly "criticizing" the PA,
> yet all day long  posting propaganda of all the PA oligarchs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
Click to expand...

Get real, all you're doing all day long is posting videos of PA's oligarch children in the US,
spending the billions of UNRWA and PA budget abroad, with the only job prescription -
to blame the corruption of their own families on Jews/Israel.

When did they ever have a legitimate govt,
ever? Did you see any of your favorite oligarchs
doing anything remotely constructive that is not optics and hot air, real job, ever?

We both know the answer...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.

*You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.

In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.

The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.

Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.

At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.

The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.

Links on request.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.
> 
> *You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.
> 
> In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.
> 
> The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.
> 
> Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.
> 
> At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.
> 
> The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.
> 
> Links on request.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.
> 
> *You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.
> 
> In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.
> 
> The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.
> 
> Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.
> 
> At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.
> 
> The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.
> 
> Links on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...










						Whose Coup, Exactly?
					

Mutual accusations are hurled by Abbas and Haniyeh that the other side launched a coup against the legitimate authority. An international community worried by the 'coup' accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the 'coup' claim stumbles over a basic...




					electronicintifada.net
				




An international community worried by the ‘coup’ accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the ‘coup’ claim stumbles over a basic problem — that Abbas’s appointing a new prime minister was itself entirely illegal. The new ‘emergency government’ is illegal, too. According to the Basic Law of Palestine (as amended in 2003), which serves as the constitution of the PA, Abbas can do neither of these things. Nor can the new ‘emergency government’ claim any democratic mandate. This means that Abbas and the Fayyad government are ruling by decree, outside the framework of the Basic Law.
-----------------
Would you like another?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.
> 
> *You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.
> 
> In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.
> 
> The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.
> 
> Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.
> 
> At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.
> 
> The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.
> 
> Links on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose Coup, Exactly?
> 
> 
> Mutual accusations are hurled by Abbas and Haniyeh that the other side launched a coup against the legitimate authority. An international community worried by the 'coup' accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the 'coup' claim stumbles over a basic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An international community worried by the ‘coup’ accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the ‘coup’ claim stumbles over a basic problem — that Abbas’s appointing a new prime minister was itself entirely illegal. The new ‘emergency government’ is illegal, too. According to the Basic Law of Palestine (as amended in 2003), which serves as the constitution of the PA, Abbas can do neither of these things. Nor can the new ‘emergency government’ claim any democratic mandate. This means that Abbas and the Fayyad government are ruling by decree, outside the framework of the Basic Law.
> -----------------
> Would you like another?
Click to expand...

Yes. Something from youtube.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.
> 
> *You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.
> 
> In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.
> 
> The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.
> 
> Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.
> 
> At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.
> 
> The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.
> 
> Links on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose Coup, Exactly?
> 
> 
> Mutual accusations are hurled by Abbas and Haniyeh that the other side launched a coup against the legitimate authority. An international community worried by the 'coup' accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the 'coup' claim stumbles over a basic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An international community worried by the ‘coup’ accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the ‘coup’ claim stumbles over a basic problem — that Abbas’s appointing a new prime minister was itself entirely illegal. The new ‘emergency government’ is illegal, too. According to the Basic Law of Palestine (as amended in 2003), which serves as the constitution of the PA, Abbas can do neither of these things. Nor can the new ‘emergency government’ claim any democratic mandate. This means that Abbas and the Fayyad government are ruling by decree, outside the framework of the Basic Law.
> -----------------
> Would you like another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Something from youtube.
Click to expand...

OK.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Stature of a Government, its People and its Nation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: An Illegal Government is a paradox.  The authoritarian regime is kept in power by the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always criticized the so called PA in the West Bank. It isn't even the legal government in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A government cannot remain in power if the people across the entire segment of their society, somehow believe he is a legitimate power.  Just to say you think the PA - State of Palestine is controlled by an illegal regime, does not shed any proof on that allegation.
> 
> *IF* the people believe the authoritarian has some hold, and the authoritarian maintains that hold through leadership,​*THEN *the authoritarian is representing the will of the people. That is a form of legitimacy.​
> *IF* the people believe that the authoritarian is illegally in power,​*THEN *the people _(ordinary citizens, civil servants, military units, mercenaries, etc)_ will rise-up and reclaim their power to control government.  ​​*IF* the people do not enforce their will, ​*THEN* the authoritarian becomes the head of state whether by Rule of Law or not.​​The government is an instrument of the people.  It stays in power by the will of the people, and is replaced by the hand of the people.
> 
> *IF* the Arab Palestinian allow Mahmoud Abbas to lead, ​*THEN* Mahmoud Abbas is the _de facto_ government.​
> After all, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  And that will remain TRUE until the people of Palestine change that underlaying view.  Passing a Basic Law and then ignoring it is implicit approval by the people.
> 
> You have to look at the ground truth and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a weird issue. I am not sure that many Palestinians know because the information is controlled by the illegal government. Some know because I sometimes hear it mentioned in Palestinian speeches.
> 
> *You have to follow this closely.* In 2006 there were PLC (parliament) elections in *all* of Palestine. Not just in Gaza. Hamas won the majority of seats giving them the right to form a government. (The PM and his cabinet.) Since Hamas was the majority party in the PA, they formed their government. (Note: Hamas was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.) The US and Israel did not like that so they cut off all funding.
> 
> In March of 2007, Hamas and Fatah created the "unity government of 2007." It included Hamas, Fatah, smaller parties, and independents. A Christian woman held a cabinet position. The PLC approved of this government as required by their constitution. It was the model government in the ME.
> 
> The US did not like that either so it provided Fatah (Remember Fatah, they lost the elections.) with $86M in weapons plus training in Jordan to overthrow the PA and put Fatah back in power.
> 
> Fighting broke out in June of 2007. Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza but failed to do so in the West Bank. Israel helped by kidnapping about 40 members of parliament and cabinet ministers. The liars call this the Hamas coup against the PA taking over Gaza.
> 
> At this time Abbas left the PA and appointed a new government in the West Bank. The president does have the authority to dismiss a government and appoint a new one. However, the existing government stays in office until the new one is approve by the PLC.
> 
> The last legal government (Approved by the PLC.) in Palestine was the Unity Government of 2007.
> 
> Links on request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose Coup, Exactly?
> 
> 
> Mutual accusations are hurled by Abbas and Haniyeh that the other side launched a coup against the legitimate authority. An international community worried by the 'coup' accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the 'coup' claim stumbles over a basic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronicintifada.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An international community worried by the ‘coup’ accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the ‘coup’ claim stumbles over a basic problem — that Abbas’s appointing a new prime minister was itself entirely illegal. The new ‘emergency government’ is illegal, too. According to the Basic Law of Palestine (as amended in 2003), which serves as the constitution of the PA, Abbas can do neither of these things. Nor can the new ‘emergency government’ claim any democratic mandate. This means that Abbas and the Fayyad government are ruling by decree, outside the framework of the Basic Law.
> -----------------
> Would you like another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Something from youtube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Michael Brooks&Jeff Halper: Decolonizing Israel Liberating Palestine The Need For 1 Democratic State​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Episode 12: Israel's New Government brings Hamas into the Tent​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Caroline Glick News Hour
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> Episode 12: Israel's New Government brings Hamas into the Tent​


*(COMMENT)*


This is so unlike you!  Are you turning away from the Dark Force?





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Free Palestine: Susan Abulhawa and Khaled Barakat Speak​


----------



## Hollie

Stay classy, ladies.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nakba Day 2020: Mustafa Barghouti , Palestinian National Initiative​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Featuring Ilan Pappe - "Palestinian: Beyond Conflict"​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Free Palestine: Susan Abulhawa and Khaled Barakat Speak​





P F Tinmore said:


>




Same handful of ruling class oligarchs who for decades have been
profiting on the suffering of their people.

So much for "justice"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians Have Won, First Time They Have Pushed Back Israeli Military Machine | Dr. Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

"Our Vision for Liberation" with Ilan Pappé & Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Is U.S. opinion shifting on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians Have Won, First Time They Have Pushed Back Israeli Military Machine | Dr. Ramzy Baroud​





P F Tinmore said:


> "Our Vision for Liberation" with Ilan Pappé & Ramzy Baroud​



Do these phony oligarchs at least convince you in their echochambers?
If these are your "victories" and "unity"...


----------



## justinacolmena

The overeducated rabbis and imams who dictate ever aspect of their subjects' lives according to extreme interpretations of harsh religious laws make everyone angry.


----------



## rylah

justinacolmena said:


> The overeducated rabbis and imams who dictate ever aspect of their subjects' lives according to extreme interpretations of harsh religious laws make everyone angry.



"Over educated imams"?

That's a misnomer, show me one who could manage an actual job.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Why should Arabs have any impunity if they don't pay rent?

Show me where they get that in the US.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​



Habibti, 
repeat after me:* "Bhaaaaalestine...!"*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Habibti,
> repeat after me:* "Bhaaaaalestine...!"*
Click to expand...

Oh, my. Those boor, obbressed Bal'istanians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

American Journalist Abby Martin Gets SHOCKING Reactions About Palestinians - TheDeenshow #856​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Where’s Palestine at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Has Israel lost the narrative war on Palestine?​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Has Israel lost the narrative war on Palestine?​


It's not a narrative war when islamic terrorists are retired.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has Israel lost the narrative war on Palestine?​
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a narrative war when islamic terrorists are retired.
Click to expand...

Israel's war crimes are part of the narrative war. That is where Israel is losing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has Israel lost the narrative war on Palestine?​
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a narrative war when islamic terrorists are retired.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel's war crimes are part of the narrative war. That is where Israel is losing.
Click to expand...

What war crimes? What is Israel losing?

Can you search YouTube and copy and paste a video?

More of your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Update: Ali Abunimah on Israeli Ethnic Cleansing in Silwan​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The U.S. Media Has A Palestine Problem​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Britain-Palestine APPG briefing on the forced eviction & dispossession of Palestinians in Jerusalem​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) & Free Speech with Abby Martin​BTW, Abby won that case.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

The Progressives in Israel Have Taken Over and Its Impact on Fighting Growing Global Jew-Hatred​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are attitudes towards Palestine shifting in the US?​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has Israel lost the narrative war on Palestine?​
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a narrative war when islamic terrorists are retired.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel's war crimes are part of the narrative war. That is where Israel is losing.
Click to expand...


Or maybe, it's revealing the weakness of Israel's adversaries,

when all they are left is to resort to pride themselves in quantitative superiority,
as the ability to repeat a lie while stomping their feet in unison,
and flail such as achievement of any sort.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Not a Conflict: Against Anti-Semitism and for Palestinian with Malkah Bird​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Gaza Professor Of Islamic Studies Nasr Fahajan: When Palestine Is Liberated, The Jews Will Not Be Annihilated; Some Will Be Allowed To Escape Abroad









						Gaza Professor Of Islamic Studies Nasr Fahajan: When Palestine Is Liberated, The Jews Will Not Be Annihilated; Some Will Be Allowed To Escape Abroad
					

Palestinian professor of Islamic studies Nasr Fahajan said that according to the Quran, Allah will "show His mercy" to t...




					www.memri.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

LIVE: Rania Khalek Discusses Israeli Occupation Of Palestine, New Government In Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State ​



Can you copy and paste a youtube video that includes Arab members of the Israeli government whining about Israeli racism, (assuming Arab is a "race), of course.

While you're trolling youtube, see if you can find a video of Jooooos in the Hamas and West Bank governments complaining about Arab racism.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare​



Rina Khalek is a top class demagogue...

now the facts:


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> LIVE: Rania Khalek Discusses Israeli Occupation Of Palestine, New Government In Israel​



So IranTV and Al-Jazeerah "journalists"
whining for half an hour about how imperialism is bad, except when Iran buy countries,
and criticism regarding failed Muslim states is "not interesting" except blaming America.

Another half an hour,
of Rania Khalek boldly lying about Israel,
by projecting on it just about every norm in her Arab society.

The fun part, is she switched the 'terrorists' in Bennet's _"I've killed a lot of terrorists in my life"_
to _"I've killed a lot of Arabs"..._suggesting Rania Khalek thinks what about Arabs? 

Wouldn't see her dare debate anyone with that lunacy,
but you sure love your echochambers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The US-Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Rania Khalek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rina Khalek is a top class demagogue...
> 
> now the facts:
Click to expand...

Yeah, throw out some red herrings and claim victory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The US-Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Rania Khalek​


What nonsensical propaganda. There is no US occupation of “Palestine”.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rina Khalek is a top class demagogue...
> 
> now the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, throw out some red herrings and claim victory.
Click to expand...


Indeed, her entire business plan.
as the cretins who mirror her lunacy, but can't handle debate.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIVE: Rania Khalek Discusses Israeli Occupation Of Palestine, New Government In Israel​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So IranTV and Al-Jazeerah "journalists"
> whining for half an hour about how imperialism is bad, except when Iran buy countries,
> and criticism regarding failed Muslim states is "not interesting" except blaming America.
> 
> Another half an hour,
> of Rania Khalek boldly lying about Israel,
> by projecting on it just about every norm in her Arab society.
> 
> The fun part, is she switched the 'terrorists' in Bennet's _"I've killed a lot of terrorists in my life"_
> to _"I've killed a lot of Arabs"..._suggesting Rania Khalek thinks what about Arabs?
> 
> Wouldn't see her dare debate anyone with that lunacy,
> but you sure love your echochambers.
Click to expand...


What, P F Tinmore nothing to refute,
but nervous laughter and your usual echochambers?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

The "genocide" slogan is just a little silly.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

"Anti-Zionism is not the same as Anti-Semitism"​


----------



## Hollie

"Anti-Islamism is not the same as Islamophobia"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Jerusalem neighbourhood symbolizing the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation​


----------



## Hollie

The Islamic Terrorist neighbourhood symbolizing the result of Palestinian terrorism.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The Islamic Terrorist neighbourhood symbolizing the result of Palestinian terrorism.​


Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Islamic Terrorist neighbourhood symbolizing the result of Palestinian terrorism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, your feelings were hurt.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Don't conflate anti-Zionism with Antisemitism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What’s next for Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah? | The Stream​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

JCPA2019 Exploring Anti-Semitism/Anti-Zionism on Campus​

Several times they talked about donors used to influence campus policy. IOW using Jewish money to influence campus policy.  If *we* talk about Jewish money we are called antisemitic.

The Zionists called their project colonialism. This project included ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and military conquest.

Those are *their* words.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Presented by NYU Skirball and the Asian/Pacific/American Institute at NYU. Co-sponsored by NYU Sanctuary, NYU Center for Multicultural Education & Programs, Islamic Center at NYU, NYU Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, NYU Jewish Voice for Peace, NYU Students for Justice in Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace – New York City. On March 25, 2019, award-winning, Brooklyn-born Palestinian American Muslim racial justice and civil rights activist Linda Sarsour delivered a lecture on migration, refugees, and the politics of sanctuary. Best known for her intersectional coalition work and building bridges across racial, ethnic, and faith communities, Sarsour has been at the forefront of major social justice campaigns both locally in New York City and nationally. She is a board member of the Women’s March on Washington, the former Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York, and co-founder of MPOWER Change, the first Muslim online organizing platform.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Pushback: Bernie, Hulk & The Hadids​


----------



## Hollie

Palestinian Politician And Human Rights Activist Dr. Mamdouh Akar: Arafat Would Be Rolling In His Grave If He Knew What Was Happening In Palestine Today
					

Dr. Mamdouh Akar, a Palestinian politician and human rights activist said that Yasser Arafat would be rolling in his gra...




					www.memri.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Facebook's Crusade Against Palestine w/ Mnar Muhawesh Adley​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> If *we* talk about Jewish money we are called antisemitic.



*Of course that's classic racist bigotry.*

Of all the funds passing through US universities,
you're fixating on "Jewish money" as something uniquely wrong.

Do you describe other influences in the campus as uniquely wrong or defined by ethnicity?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Facebook's Crusade Against Palestine w/ Mnar Muhawesh Adley​



Mnar Myhaweshm....
why does she keep lying about the Ramadan date in 2001?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>


Another "antisemitism is only the other side" apologetic.

As I've said, Islamists drunk by rising Jew hatred, convinced themselves of victory,
and overplayed their hand thinking it was an open season on Jews in the US.

Weren't you as typically hyped by your own echochambers,
there wasn't this need now for "demage control".


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Of course that's classic racist bigotry.*
> 
> Of all the funds passing through US universities,
> you're fixating on "Jewish money" as something uniquely wrong.
> 
> Do you describe other influences in the campus as uniquely wrong or defined by ethnicity?


They are the ones who brought up Jewish money.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza is an open air prison and weapons testing laboratory with Rania Khalek​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> They are the ones who brought up Jewish money.



As as example of your bigotry.

Do you ever complain about, or frame the money of any other ethnicity on the campus?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nurit Peled-Elhanan on the Stakes of Education in Israel​


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> As as example of your bigotry.
> 
> Do you ever complain about, or frame the money of any other ethnicity on the campus?


P F Tinmore 

So no,
but will you have the integrity to admit?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Nurit Peled-Elhanan on the Stakes of Education in Israel​



Well, isn't her ability to freely express such opinions
while keeping her career already says it all about Israeli education?

She wouldn't survive a day saying anything in a remotely similar manner
about Bir Zeit or the Gaza Islamic uni. Neither her nor her family would've lived another day.

If she said anything against the Leftist bias in the US academia,
what would happen to her career?

Hence, Nobel prizes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat: Palestine Under Attack + Yumna Patel Live In Bethlehem​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israeli-Palestinian 'Conflict' Doesn't Exist.​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Noura Erakat: Palestine Under Attack + Yumna Patel Live ​



What attack?

Link?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

MUSLIMS EXPOSE BEN SHAPIRO ON ISRAEL​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> ​What attack?​​Link?​


You remind me of my kids. I would walk into their room and I would be half way up to my knees with books, papers, toys, whatever. I would say that you need to clean up this mess. They would look around and say,

*What mess?*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is*​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Criticizing Israel Isn't Antisemitic; The Suggestion *Is*​



Indeed, the only variety of opinions,
any actual individual thinking is, sadly, only on the Jewish side.

Arabs simply given up on having any chance in fact based debate,
and decided to totally indulge in echo chambers to dodge any
direct interaction with counterargument of opposing voices.

*To constantly lie and scream racist blood libels
from the top your lungs on the streets
is not criticism.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ali Abunimah starts @ 1:31:00


----------



## P F Tinmore

EYE ON PALESTINE: A Teach-In with Lamis Deek​


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> EYE ON PALESTINE: A Teach-In with Lamis Deek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"The Palestinian Sharpeville" - Professor Haidar Eid on global implications of Gaza massacre​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel-UAE-Bahrain-US Deal: Causes and Implications of Normalization​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why are American Jews distancing from Israel?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Responding to Zionist Myths About Palestine | Dr. Hatem Bazian​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Struggle for a Free Palestine | Miko Peled | Challenging the Zionist Narrative of Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Five Essential Questions About The Zionist Narrative | Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norm Finkelstein DESTROYS "Why Can't Palestinians Find A Gandhi" Talking Point​


----------



## P F Tinmore

'OF COURSE Israel Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians!' - Israeli Anthropologist Corrects Debra Messing​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian ambassador Husam Zomlot wants ‘clear commitment from UK to fix the mess created here'​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> "The Palestinian Sharpeville" - Professor Haidar Eid on global implications of Gaza massacre​



There was a "massacre"?

Indeed. Another of your conspiracy theories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Norm Finkelstein DESTROYS "Why Can't Palestinians Find A Gandhi" Talking Point​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​




*Q. Is that why the Pali-Islamic "justice" frauds
never allow Africans into any of their governments? *


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Point 'v' Counterpoint
⁜→ _et al,_

*(REVIEW)*

_Here is the Video Link for _*Norman Finkelstein on Russian TV*







*(COMMENT)*

In this regard, one has to ask:  What do David Duke, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, Norm Finkelstein, and Noam Chomsky all have in common _(besides holding prestigious Doctorate Degrees)_?  And by the looks of it, our friend P F Tinmore is right in line with them. 

Of course, if you are even the least bit familiar with current events, you know they are all on a ride in the Anti-Israeli Bandwagon.

◈  David Duke is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, a convicted felon, and former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.​​◈  Sheikh Yasir Qadhi is an American resident Scholar of the Memphis Islamic Center and a popular speaker by Muslim Organizers in the US, UK Canada, and Australia.​​◈  Norm Finkelstein is an American political scientist, activist, former professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust.​​◈  Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist.​
I am not at all discrediting them on the basis of their history or association by common beliefs, I leave that up to you.  You don't need an FBI Profiler to see the pattern.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _Here is the Video Link for _*Norman Finkelstein on Russian TV*


Good interview, thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Whitney Webb On Pegasus And The Depths Of Global Israeli Spying Industry​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish caller: I shouldn't have to answer for Israel's actions | James O'Brien​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin: an apartheid regime that is oppressing 5 million people doesn't have the right to exist​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Angela Davis & Noura Erakat on Palestinian Solidarity​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Middle East on the Brink: An Israel-Gaza Special​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is U.S. opinion shifting on the Israel-Palestine conflict?​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

'Israel is weaponising anti-Semitism in order to stifle debate about Palestine'​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 'Israel is weaponising anti-Semitism in order to stifle debate about Palestine'​








How come despite the numbers, all you've got is a handful of faces
repeating the same indoctrination as in to discourage individual thought.

While Israel support always comes from a changing variety
of most unexpected backgrounds, with new faces and fresh ideas?

Think about that...


----------



## P F Tinmore

A Jewish Case for Equality in Israel-Palestine with Peter Beinart​


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Whitney Webb On Pegasus And The Depths Of Global Israeli Spying Industry​











						BDS is getting traction– says Israeli spyware-master
					

Israel’s reputation as “Start-up Nation” is being replaced by “Spy-Up Nation,” due to its marketing of intelligence software, Omar Barghouti of the BDS campaign says.




					mondoweiss.net
				




“Israel’s NSO Group is now exposed to the world as deeply implicated in very serious crimes and grave human rights violations worldwide, so it is expectedly desperate to deflect by fabricating pathetic conspiracy theories. Israel’s spyware and military technologies are field-tested on Indigenous Palestinians under Israeli occupation and apartheid and then exported to the world as tools of repression and war crimes. It is time the world held apartheid Israel accountable, as apartheid South Africa once was, and not just for the sake of Palestinians but for the sake of world peace and justice as well.”


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> BDS is getting traction– says Israeli spyware-master
> 
> 
> Israel’s reputation as “Start-up Nation” is being replaced by “Spy-Up Nation,” due to its marketing of intelligence software, Omar Barghouti of the BDS campaign says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mondoweiss.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Israel’s NSO Group is now exposed to the world as deeply implicated in very serious crimes and grave human rights violations worldwide, so it is expectedly desperate to deflect by fabricating pathetic conspiracy theories. Israel’s spyware and military technologies are field-tested on Indigenous Palestinians under Israeli occupation and apartheid and then exported to the world as tools of repression and war crimes. It is time the world held apartheid Israel accountable, as apartheid South Africa once was, and not just for the sake of Palestinians but for the sake of world peace and justice as well.”



Seriously, now you complain about conspiracy theories?









						Quds News Network Now Admits Alaa Zahran Not Killed By Israelis
					

Earlier this week, anti-Israel propaganda site Quds News Network (and others) blamed "Israeli settlers" for killing Alaa Zahran




					www.israellycool.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Will Europe follow Ireland’s lead on Palestine?​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel-Gaza: How can conflict de-escalate?​

Israel keeps pretending that gaza rockets are inprovoked.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Incite and inflame: Israel’s manipulation of the media​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Confrontations and Balanced Reporting
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> Israel-Gaza: How can conflict de-escalate?​Israel keeps pretending that gaza rockets are inprovoked.


*(COMMENT)*

This complaining is simple child-like temper tantrums in the face the dangerous outcomes Arab Palestinians know that will result.  Anyone who looks a the past history of Arab Palestinian acts of aggression can plainly see the Palestinians WANT to continue the conflict and refuse to accept the consequences of their actions.

Further, this crying about civilian casualties is the direct result of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) failure to follow Customary and International Laws:

*Rule 23:  * *Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.*​​*Rule 24*:  _*Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives*_.​​*Rule 97*:  _*The use of human shields is prohibited.*_​
Under the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected people to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts [*ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)*].  By attempting to hide "High-Value Targets" and "Rocket Launch Sites" in and among otherwise protected civilians, HAMAS attempts to render these targets and Sites immune from counterfire.  Then when protected civilians are killed or wounded, HAMAS and the pro-Palestinian movement attempt to use media coverage to persuade the International Community as to just how dastardly the Israelis are.

Now part of the pro-HAMAS (ie *pro-Terrorist*) media presentation was focused on clashes in Jerusalem over evictions and criminal confrontations.  This is about the application of Israeli Domestic Law.  And the outcome of the application of domestic law falls outside the purview of the International Community (*Article 2(7) UN Charter*).

I have yet to hear from any complainant what the allegations are.  They complain, yet do not articulate the misfeasance or malfeasance of the Israeli.  Is what the Israeli doing inside the Rule of Law? • or • Are the Israelis coloring outside the lines?

The Arab Palestinians have an exceptionally long history of violent civil disobedience.

To be fair, The Israeli Police seem to take the side of the Israeli in nearly every clash.  It defies the Laws of Probability as to whether the Israelis are always in the right.  But once the confrontation turns violent, logic and reason are the first victims.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I have yet to hear from any complainant what the allegations are. They complain, yet do not articulate the misfeasance or malfeasance of the Israeli. Is what the Israeli doing inside the Rule of Law? • or • Are the Israelis coloring outside the lines?


Israel is imposing its domestic law on the OPT. That makes it international.

Hamas warned Israel that it would respond if Israel continued its aggression in the West Bank,

Israel had a choice. It chose the rockets. Israel cannot claim self defense when it is the aggressor.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel-Gaza: How can conflict de-escalate?​
> Israel keeps pretending that gaza rockets are inprovoked.





P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is imposing its domestic law on the OPT. That makes it international.
> 
> Hamas warned Israel that it would respond if Israel continued its aggression in the West Bank,
> 
> Israel had a choice. It chose the rockets. Israel cannot claim self defense when it is the aggressor.


What aggression in the West Bank did Hamas warn Israel against? Isn't there currently a competing dictator to Hamas in the West Bank? 

 Could you identify where Israel ''chose rockets''?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> What aggression in the West Bank did Hamas warn Israel against? Isn't there currently a competing dictator to Hamas in the West Bank?
> 
> Could you identify where Israel ''chose rockets''?


Already did. You need to keep up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Already did. You need to keep up.


So, as usual, you retreat from your earlier, false claims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

‎Rethinking Palestine: Palestinian Securitization vs Liberation with Alaa Tartir on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep Palestinian Securitization vs Liberation with Alaa Tartir - Jul 22, 2021



					podcasts.apple.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Demise of Palestinian Productive Sectors - Al-Shabaka
					

The Israeli occupation has crippled Palestinian productive sectors, leading to the dominance of internal trade in the Palestinian economy.




					al-shabaka.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Demise of Palestinian Productive Sectors - Al-Shabaka
> 
> 
> The Israeli occupation has crippled Palestinian productive sectors, leading to the dominance of internal trade in the Palestinian economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> al-shabaka.org


It's a pattern of behavior for Pallys to blame others for their failures and incompetence.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Confrontations and Balanced Reporting
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is imposing its domestic law on the OPT. That makes it international.


*(COMMENT)*


 Just the other day, I posted the special conditions the Arab Palestinians agreed to concerning Area "C."  I think maybe 80% of the Arab Palestinians live in Areas A and B.
Israel is following the intent and the spirit of the requirement of the Hague Regulation:

HR 1907 Article 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​
Israel is generally prosecuting Hostile Arab Palestinians pursuant to the Fourth Geneva Convention:

GCIV Article 68:  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ]  of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.​The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ]  and 65 [ Link ]  may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.​The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.​
Of course, there are 19 core International Terrorism Conventions and Laws that have to be applied from time to time.  I've mentioned many of them in the past.  But, it is hard to answer blanket accusations such as this when there are no specifics.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hamas warned Israel that it would respond if Israel continued its aggression in the West Bank,


*(COMMENT)*

There is no act of aggression in Jerusalem.  I very carefully read the articles you produced and watch the videos.  It is impossible for Israeli police, security and military services in Jerusalem to be accused of "aggression" since the actions all took place (a_s near as I can tell_) inside sovereign Israeli territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel had a choice. It chose the rockets. Israel cannot claim self defense when it is the aggressor.


*(COMMENT)*

A/RES/3314(XXIX)
14 December 1974

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute _prima facie _evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
In terms of HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) :  The Israeli General said that armed groups in Gaza have fired about 3,000 rockets towards Israel since Monday. 
WorldAgence France-PresseUpdated: May 16, 2021 6:02 pm IST

The Israelis are being quite conservative in the counterfire.  I can only wonder what the US would do if Mexico, run largely by the Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers, fire 3000 rockets into the US and set 33000 people to overrun the border all at once.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> It's a pattern of behavior for Pallys to blame others for their failures and incompetence.


Indeed, bombing their factories and bulldozing their crops has nothing to do with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute _prima facie _evidence of an act of aggression


It was Israel's aggression in occupied Jerusalem that started it.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, bombing their factories and bulldozing their crops has nothing to do with it.


Indeed, you offer nothing to support your hysterical claims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Indeed, you offer nothing to support your hysterical claims.


Sure I have. You need to keep up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sheikh Jarrah: Settler colonialism, media coverage, and forced expulsions​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure I have. You need to keep up.


Indeed, have you cut and pasted a youtube video?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Confrontations and Balanced Reporting
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> It was Israel's aggression in occupied Jerusalem that started it.


*(QUESTION)*

OK, exactly what did the Israelis do that was considered an "act of aggression?"





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Confrontations and Balanced Reporting
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> OK, exactly what did the Israelis do that was considered an "act of aggression?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


  Geeze, Rocco, Where have you been?

Beyond a ceasefire: ending Israeli aggression in all its forms against the Palestinian people​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel’s Losing Battle: Palestine Advocacy in the University
					

The majority of suppression of Palestine advocacy in the US targets university students and faculty.




					al-shabaka.org


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Poll Release: The US Debate on Israel/Palestine is Changing​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

More than History: 1917, 1936, & 2021, ft. Sherene Seikaly & Sarah Anne Minkin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians, Israelis, 1948, & Now: Researching, Teaching, and Asserting the Reality of the Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Decolonizing the Narrative" - "Occupied Thoughts" podcast with Nooran Alhamdan & Sarah Anne Minkin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel-Palestine: The double standard in American newsrooms​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ending The Occupation | Inside America with Ghida Fakhry​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 'There is no victory here'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Twitter-Restricted Palestine-Based Journalist Debunks One of Israel's Biggest Lies​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Wave in Palestinian Politics? Youth Activism in the Sheikh Jarrah Era​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Development of Palestinian Narrative in 2021 Israeli Aggression on Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Um Sameer tells the story of Sheikh Jarrah​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza, and Historic Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: The Ongoing Nakba in Shaikh Jarrah​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


Expulsions and exoduses of Jews - Wikipedia

Ask why anyone who is Jewish should care and there will be no response.  If they had their way, The Jewish people would not be allowed to even set foot in E. Jerusalem which include their religious sites


----------



## P F Tinmore

Politics in the U.S. and Palestine with Rashida Tlaib, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Diana Buttu, and Dr. Loubna Qutami​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.


The Hamas actions were a response to Israeli aggression.


----------



## P F Tinmore

From an Israel-Centric to a Rights-Based Approach - Zaha Hassan​
Go to 4:25 and think of Oslo.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Article 47 GCIV
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> From an Israel-Centric to a Rights-Based Approach - Zaha Hassan​
> Go to 4:25 and think of Oslo.


*(COMMENT)*

Article 47 pre-supposes that the Israelis occupied "Palestinian Sovereign Territory."  Israeli did NO SUCH THING.

Israel occupied Jordan's Sovereign Territory and has given the Hostile Arab Palestinians Gaza, which they promptly turn into the world's largest Rocket LaunchPad.

*Excerpt and Link*




Hostile Arab Palestinians pose a danger to any party they come in contact.

*Article 68 GCIV*
Protected persons who commit an offence which is *solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, *but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be_* liable to internment or simple imprisonment,*_ provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may *impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons*, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Complicity with Ethnic Cleansing: How U.S. Charities Fund Israeli Settlements​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Son of IDF General, Miko Peled, "Show me the Palestinian extremists. I've never seen them."​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The sour grapes club. They are freaking out because they contribute to illegal settlements.

Rep. Tlaib Pushes Antisemitism at Democrat Socialists Convention​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel/Palestine in The Age of Obama and The Tea Party: What Does the Future Hold?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Rights, Jewish Responsibility: A Conversation with Peter Beinart​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Promoting Palestinian Freedom: The Role of American Civil Society​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian Rights, Jewish Responsibility: A Conversation with Peter Beinart​


What nobody EVER asks is how can Jews be assured they will have equal Rights in this “ One State Solution?” With Jews being the minority?
 What will be the name of this New “ State” 
 Why would any Israeli even consider this knowing that their religious freedom would be terminated?


----------



## the other mike

P F Tinmore said:


> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.
> 
> *Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations*


Reagan was owned by the Jewish Mafia...... they wanted Carter out more than anyone in 1980.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Angelo said:


> Reagan was owned by the Jewish Mafia...... they wanted Carter out more than anyone in 1980.


We still own you


----------



## the other mike

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> We still own you


You think so.


----------



## the other mike

btw
If anyone doesn't believe me about the Jewish mob owning US presidents ,  go to 5:30..... of course this doesn't confirm it, but you'll see that I did not make it up.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Angelo said:


> You think so.


You’re the one who inferred it. I’m just agreeing


----------



## the other mike

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> You’re the one who inferred it. I’m just agreeing


So you're openly admitting to the world that you're a member of an organized crime family ?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

So you're openly admitting to the world that you're a member of an organized crime family ?

Because we control you? Your inference !


----------



## P F Tinmore

The TRUTH about what's going on in PALESTINE. (Gaza, Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem).​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The TRUTH about what's going on in PALESTINE. (Gaza, Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem).​



Can you find the truth
in an echochamber?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Was there a Palestinian government,
that ever allowed any Africans into power?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>





rylah said:


> Was there a Palestinian government,
> that ever allowed any Africans into power?



So the answer is - no,

and instead of admitting that's why you troll off topic?


----------



## P F Tinmore

J Street and the Limitations of Liberal Zionism - Philip Weiss​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Former Member of the Knesset and IDF Spokesman Dr. Nachman Shai joins Jewish Studies Director Dr. Yaron Ayalon to discuss the collapse of the Zionist left in Israel, and liberal Zionism more broadly, in recent years.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Former Member of the Knesset and IDF Spokesman Dr. Nachman Shai joins Jewish Studies Director Dr. Yaron Ayalon to discuss the collapse of the Zionist left in Israel, and liberal Zionism more broadly, in recent years.


YAWN…. Don’t see anything in your “ Cut and Paste” that states “ Liberal Zionists” that they believe Israel has no right to exist or they don’t have any rights to religious freedom


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> YAWN…. Don’t see anything in your “ Cut and Paste” that states “ Liberal Zionists” that they believe Israel has no right to exist or they don’t have any rights to religious freedom


BTW. Only 10 percent of the Palestinians” are for the “ One State Solution”


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>











						Antisemitism Uncovered: Antisemitism in Global History
					

Across continents and centuries, Jews have faced persecution and scapegoating that persists through present day.




					antisemitism.adl.org
				




Another Nonsensical cut and paste by Tinmore Antisemitism has been alive for centuries.   Of course Tinmore would use those who disapproved of Israel today for any reason to attack Jews who don't live in Israel and have nothing to do with the conflict as a Valid excuse


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Antisemitism Uncovered: Antisemitism in Global History
> 
> 
> Across continents and centuries, Jews have faced persecution and scapegoating that persists through present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antisemitism.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Nonsensical cut and paste by Tinmore Antisemitism has been alive for centuries.   Of course Tinmore would use those who disapproved of Israel today for any reason to attack Jews who don't live in Israel and have nothing to do with the conflict as a Valid excuse


 What don't you agree with; That Antisemitism has existed for centuries before 1948?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Why I BELIEVE IN A JEWISH STATE


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed
					

The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the "1967 borders." But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact.




					jcpa.org
				




Palestinians never intended to accept the "67 Borders"  One more reason why there will never be a " Palestinian State"


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep 4: Featuring Ali Abunimah - "Palestinian: Beyond Conflict"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roger Waters talks about BDS, Human Rights and Pink Floyd.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Trita Parsi: How Middle East Politics Are Shifting Over Israel-Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gendering Geopolitics with Emily Prey: Noura Erakat​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Former Member of the Knesset and IDF Spokesman Dr. Nachman Shai joins Jewish Studies Director Dr. Yaron Ayalon to discuss the collapse of the Zionist left in Israel, and liberal Zionism more broadly, in recent years.



First time I hear of these two, an I'm an Israeli.

The Zionist left is not collapsing,
quiet the opposite, it's the ruling political power.

Liberal Zionists are thriving as well especially now -
that with the radicalization of the anti-Zionist Left and raising of Islamist Right,
the majority of regular moderate leftists/liberals are now relatively in the center.

Israel is a small country, with traditional family values,
a population familiar with life and war on its soil,
B"H now birthrates exceeding some Arab states.

It's not like the Left in the massive empire of US -
there's a natural limit to how you can swing that boat here.

In Israel, at the end of loud politics the left and right are family,
while in the US, the swing between the radicals focuses on race relations...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> J Street and the Limitations of Liberal Zionism - Philip Weiss​



If by "Liberal Zionism" you mean American Jews who identify as 'liberal'
- then the main limitation is birthrates.

In the next two generations every third young Israeli (counting Arabs) - is an orthodox.
In the US (if the community stays), this becomes apparent even earlier.

But if Liberal Zionism is an ideology, then it can travel populations,
progress mixing with the most seemingly contradictory ideologies.
Those Socialist-Kabbalist Rabbis along  the Arab-Muslim Zionists,
with anti-Zionist Islamists in a Labor Zionist Feminists coalition,
 - all in the same parliament, only in Israel.

JStreet are new comers, and despite these Boomers trying
hardly represent the mainstream of the next generation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat: Stop “Both Sides”-ing Israel and Palestine | The Dig Ep 2​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Noura Erakat: Stop “Both Sides”-ing Israel and Palestine | The Dig Ep 2​



She sure knew to use the media to cover up
how the Erekat oligarchs pushed her cousin
to suicide by accusing him of treason.


----------



## rylah

*“Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran,” demonstrators in Iran’s capital Tehran chant*

Protests sparked by a water crisis in Iran spread to the capital Tehran on Monday, videos shared online showed, with demonstrators chanting slogans against the country’s theocratic rulers.

Another video showed protesters chanting “death to the dictator,” a chant used regularly in anti-government demonstrations in Iran against the country’s highest authority, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The protesters also expressed their disapproval of Iran’s foreign policies, chanting in one video “neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran” in reference to Tehran’s support for Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Further read:

*








						Iran protests spread to Tehran with chants against supreme leader
					

Protests sparked by a water crisis in Iran spread to the capital Tehran on Monday, videos shared online showed, with demonstrators chanting slogans against




					english.alarabiya.net
				



*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin's Gut Wrenching Story From 'Gaza Fights For Freedom'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Political Shifts in the Middle East: Iran and Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Being Palestinian and the Palestinian Right of Return​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The System & Soldiers Behind Settler Violence​


----------



## P F Tinmore

ONGOING NAKBA AT 73: Palestinians Demand Right of Return​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> ONGOING NAKBA AT 73: Palestinians Demand Right of Return​


YAWN…..Who’s going to lead the charge… Joe Biden?  Lol. Certainly not the UN. They have enough on their plates dealing with rights the Afghan people especially women to be treated as human beings, respect, and rights to self determination


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: The Use and Misuse of Antisemitism Accusations in Canada​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Webinar: The Use and Misuse of Antisemitism Accusations in Canada​


The stain of antisemitism in Canada | CMHR

Tinmore would have you believe that there is no Antisemitism in Canada, it's imagined or it's all about the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  
   The above statement would be true World Wide. Antisemitism has existed for thousands of years and has NOTHING to do with the JEWISH STATE


----------



## Hollie

rylah said:


> If by "Liberal Zionism" you mean American Jews who identify as 'liberal'
> - then the main limitation is birthrates.
> 
> In the next two generations every third young Israeli (counting Arabs) - is an orthodox.
> In the US (if the community stays), this becomes apparent even earlier.
> 
> But if Liberal Zionism is an ideology, then it can travel populations,
> progress mixing with the most seemingly contradictory ideologies.
> Those Socialist-Kabbalist Rabbis along  the Arab-Muslim Zionists,
> with anti-Zionist Islamists in a Labor Zionist Feminists coalition,
> - all in the same parliament, only in Israel.
> 
> JStreet are new comers, and despite these Boomers trying
> hardly represent the mainstream of the next generation.


Did you really think that P F Tinmore could offer any response other than cutting and pasting a YouTube video?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


> Did you really think that P F Tinmore could offer any response other than cutting and pasting a YouTube video?


NO


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The stain of antisemitism in Canada | CMHR
> 
> Tinmore would have you believe that there is no Antisemitism in Canada, it's imagined or it's all about the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
> The above statement would be true World Wide. Antisemitism has existed for thousands of years and has NOTHING to do with the JEWISH STATE


Sure there is Antisemitism, but not that fake IHRA shit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Discriminatory Laws and Systemic Racism in Israel​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure there is Antisemitism, but not that fake IHRA shit.



So when you call *Arabs who support Israel the N-words,*
is that "fake Antisemitism" or your blatant racism?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Discriminatory Laws and Systemic Racism in Israel​


In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.


.


P F Tinmore said:


> Discriminatory Laws and Systemic Racism in Israel​











						PA officials: Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall
					

Judge Tayseer Al-Tamimi says Al-Aqsa Mosque, including Jewish holy site, is Islamic and belongs to Muslims alone




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




Yes, I agree. There should be no discrimination .  Of course , the Western Wall isn't the only Jewish religious site in E Jerusalem


----------



## P F Tinmore

Two-State Illusion, One-State Solution​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Two-State Illusion, One-State Solution​





P F Tinmore said:


> Two-State Illusion, One-State Solution​


YAWN..,  With the “ one state solution”
I don’t see any conversation about Israelis having say in any form of the Gov’t or all their Holy Sites. For those two reasons alone it will NEVER happen


----------



## P F Tinmore

Cease Fire? With Norm Finkelstein & Jim Zogby​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

IJV Press Conference on Bill 168: No IHRA in Ontario​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



When she calls these "peaceful protests"
she doesn't even try to sound credible.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> IJV Press Conference on Bill 168: No IHRA in Ontario​











						Jewish Community Applauds Ontario's Adoption of IHRA Definition of Antisemitism - B'nai Brith Canada
					

October 27, 2020 TORONTO – Today, the Government of Ontario became the first province in Canada to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, as endorsed by consensus at the 2016 IHRA plenary. The IHRA definition is the product of decades of...




					www.bnaibrith.ca


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza Reconstruction: More than a Humanitarian Project​

*Think genocide.*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel as a Racist Endeavour: Unpacking the IHRA​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel, Palestine and the myth of the 'generous peace offers​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Daphna Levit: Another Israeli Wrestles With Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jews Against Zionism: From Bund to Satmar to Now​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Teaching Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

In this talk, James Zogby reviews the ideology and practice of the movement of political Zionism and its patron, British imperialism, that together were responsible for the denial of Palestinian rights, the subsequent campaigns of disinformation and the repression against the Palestinian people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ariel Gold, Rebecca Vilkomerson


----------



## P F Tinmore

The ACTUAL Truth About Palestine in response to Danny Ayalon​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The ACTUAL Truth About Palestine in response to Danny Ayalon​



*The truth about 'Palestine' - is that Arabs can't even pronounce it*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Teaching Palestine​


*Hey teacher - can you spot the difference?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> In this talk, James Zogby reviews the ideology and practice of the movement of political Zionism and its patron, British imperialism, that together were responsible for the denial of Palestinian rights, the subsequent campaigns of disinformation and the repression against the Palestinian people.



Arabs messed it up really big for themselves.

Political Zionism arose from Arab violence,
and expulsion of local Jewish population
caused by the Damascus blood libel -









						Damascus affair - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Arabs messed it up really big for themselves.
> 
> Political Zionism arose from Arab violence,
> and expulsion of local Jewish population
> caused by the Damascus blood libel -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damascus affair - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


So, what does that have to do with Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *The truth about 'Palestine' - is that Arabs can't even pronounce it*


Dana has no problem pronouncing Palestine.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> So, what does that have to do with Palestine?


That's what caused the Arab supremacists to lose it,
initiating Political Zionism in response.

Arabs are their own worst enemies.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Dana has no problem pronouncing Palestine.



Indeed, the letters missing in Arabic to do so...
can be easily learned in the US.

Dana's a good example,
the correct decision.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> That's what caused the Arab supremacists to lose it,
> initiating Political Zionism in response.
> 
> Arabs are their own worst enemies.


Nice duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Indeed, the letters missing in Arabic to do so...
> can be easily learned in the US.
> 
> Dana's a good example,
> the correct decision.


And Vietnam has no "F" sound. They always use "P."

So I don't see any relevance to your argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> That's what caused the Arab supremacists to lose it,
> initiating Political Zionism in response.
> 
> Arabs are their own worst enemies.


Still has nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Still has nothing to do with Palestine.



The Arab supremacists wanted domination over the entire Middle East,
but instead initiated Political Zionism and got defeated in Palestine,
by a bunch of former dhimmis - who're now the 11th happiest
country in the world.

I agree, nothing to do whatsoever
with  Arab version of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> And Vietnam has no "F" sound. They always use "P."
> 
> So I don't see any relevance to your argument.



If you compensate with languages half a globe around,
for the  Arabic inability to pronounce_ 'P-alestine'..._

does that mean they ever really belonged,
or had any allegiance to the country?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


“ Israel’s bombing campaign against Gaza” Has anyone noticed in this “ discussion” there is no mention of what brought this on? Of course not…  There never is


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> “ Israel’s bombing campaign against Gaza” Has anyone noticed in this “ discussion” there is no mention of what brought this on? Of course not…  There never is


There was. Sorry you missed it.


----------



## rylah




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> There was. Sorry you missed it.


Listened to most of it. No mention of the Constant Rockets Israel’s being barraged with. Heard about a lot of other nonsense


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Listened to most of it. No mention of the Constant Rockets Israel’s being barraged with. Heard about a lot of other nonsense


You look at everything through Israel colored glasses.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> You look at everything through Israel colored glasses.You look at everything through Palestinian colored glasses including defending their “ goal” to forbid Israeli access to their religious sites


   You honestly don’t have the ability to understand that the Pre 67  domination of E Jerusalem by the Arab World preventing Jews from what should be a “ human right” (   Having access to their religious sites) will never happen again


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF:  You and your anti-Israel friends (like Brian Eno, Dan Machover, Diala Shamas, Pete Beinert, Emily Prey, Noura Erakat, etc etc _ad nauseam_) have - not once - come up with a realistic solution that will keep the territory (formerly under the Mandate) the most highly developed of all the Arab League Nations.



P F Tinmore said:


> You look at everything through Israel colored glasses.


*(COMMENT)*
.
If you want to take a look into the future, it's not going to get much better for the Arab Palestinians.  None of the regional countries want to see the controls dropped and the threat the Palestinians pose, all of a sudden, running loose in the Region.  The threat the Saudi Arabians discovered did not go unnoticed by the regional governments.  Sure, the Arab League will remain relatively balanced on the side of the Arab Palestinians in a politically docile way.  But it is unlikely they want to engage in proactive support of the Islamic Resistance, the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and other Asymmetric Fighters that would come out of the bottle once it is opened.  It has the potential of spreading like the Black Death.

While Libya has drifted away from the concerns by many in the western world, the Arab League knows that such the experiment of allowing the radicalized elements to take control of the nation, Libya exemplifies the outcome a decade later (next month).  And the were many more business-minded in Libya - and it is still a fail country.  The Arab Palestinians have a great pool of rabble-rousers, thieves, and political con-men, they have masked the fact that they are a failed state that cannot survive without donor nation contributions and the monetary boost the self-sustaining UNRWA contributes.

All the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israeli crowd can talk about is all the woes the poor Arab Palestinians have suffered, without exception, by not cooperating even once in a hundred years in establishing a viable self-governing institution.  

You guys can whine and cry all you want about the Israelis.  But you cannot deny that they built a nation, second to none, in the immediate region.  And the Hostile Arab Palestinians did nothing.

I'm sorry, but these people that support the Hostile Arab Palestinians and anti-Israel opposition are betraying the people of the Wst Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip with every rocket the fire or incendiary kite they let fly when they could show the world how they can rise like the immortal Pheonix out the smoldering ashes and build a nation.

They can't do it.  

No matter what evil you can claim the Israelis have done (and history has shown they always blame the Jews), they are a nation builder.  And the Arab Palestinians cannot evolve past the stage of crooks, criminals, terrorists, and murderers.

They should put that on their flag.  "Terrorists Since WWI."
.





_Most Respectfully,
R
_


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> You honestly don’t have the ability to understand that the Pre 67  domination of E Jerusalem by the Arab World preventing Jews from what should be a “ human right” (   Having access to their religious sites) will never happen again


Thst was Jordan not Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> BLUF:  You and your anti-Israel friends (like Brian Eno, Dan Machover, Diala Shamas, Pete Beinert, Emily Prey, Noura Erakat, etc etc _ad nauseam_) have - not once - come up with a realistic solution that will keep the territory (formerly under the Mandate) the most highly developed of all the Arab League Nations.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> If you want to take a look into the future, it's not going to get much better for the Arab Palestinians.  None of the regional countries want to see the controls dropped and the threat the Palestinians pose, all of a sudden, running loose in the Region.  The threat the Saudi Arabians discovered did not go unnoticed by the regional governments.  Sure, the Arab League will remain relatively balanced on the side of the Arab Palestinians in a politically docile way.  But it is unlikely they want to engage in proactive support of the Islamic Resistance, the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and other Asymmetric Fighters that would come out of the bottle once it is opened.  It has the potential of spreading like the Black Death.
> 
> While Libya has drifted away from the concerns by many in the western world, the Arab League knows that such the experiment of allowing the radicalized elements to take control of the nation, Libya exemplifies the outcome a decade later (next month).  And the were many more business-minded in Libya - and it is still a fail country.  The Arab Palestinians have a great pool of rabble-rousers, thieves, and political con-men, they have masked the fact that they are a failed state that cannot survive without donor nation contributions and the monetary boost the self-sustaining UNRWA contributes.
> 
> All the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israeli crowd can talk about is all the woes the poor Arab Palestinians have suffered, without exception, by not cooperating even once in a hundred years in establishing a viable self-governing institution.
> 
> You guys can whine and cry all you want about the Israelis.  But you cannot deny that they built a nation, second to none, in the immediate region.  And the Hostile Arab Palestinians did nothing.
> 
> I'm sorry, but these people that support the Hostile Arab Palestinians and anti-Israel opposition are betraying the people of the Wst Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip with every rocket the fire or incendiary kite they let fly when they could show the world how they can rise like the immortal Pheonix out the smoldering ashes and build a nation.
> 
> They can't do it.
> 
> No matter what evil you can claim the Israelis have done (and history has shown they always blame the Jews), they are a nation builder.  And the Arab Palestinians cannot evolve past the stage of crooks, criminals, terrorists, and murderers.
> 
> They should put that on their flag.  "Terrorists Since WWI."
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


WOW, trope city.

The Palestinians are not a threat to anyone.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel Lobby in Academia: Film screening​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Loser wants to shut down the debate.*

What Happened at the Antisemitism Summit? - With Irwin Cotler​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Owen Jones meets Salma Karmi-Ayyoub | 'The IHRA antisemitism debate is toxic'​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, trope city.
> 
> The Palestinians are not a threat to anyone.



Except if you' are:

boarding a plane,
or a US senator
or LGBTQ
or Jew

...and others you like them to murder.









						Hamas Commander, Accused of Theft and Gay Sex, Is Killed by His Own (Published 2016)
					

The death of Mahmoud Ishtiwi, who was accused of homosexuality, had all the trappings of a soap opera: sex, torture and embezzlement, in the armed wing of Hamas.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Thst was Jordan not Palestine.


They already came out and stated the Jewish people would have NO access to the Western Wall. Show me where they made it clear that with that ONE exception the Jewish people even Israelis would NOT be denied their religious rights. You can’t because that’s not in their plans


----------



## P F Tinmore

Fighting Anti-Semitism or Silencing Critics of Israel?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Max Blumenthal, "The 51 Day War"​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Fighting Anti-Semitism or Silencing Critics of Israel?​











						The stain of antisemitism in Canada | CMHR
					






					humanrights.ca
				




This little " exchange" about Anti Semitism vs Silencing Critics of Israel is in Toronto , Canada so let's talk about Antisemitism in Canada. Does ANY  of this have to do with Israel and the " occupation?" Of Course not! Antisemitism has been in existence for almost 2000 years prior to 1948

Timeline of antisemitism - Wikipedia








						Oh, The Humanities!: Why the Jews of Montreal had to keep their heads down in 1930s
					

If Jews were too strident about the growing danger to their co-religionists in Europe, they feared unwelcome attention at home and triggering even worse forms of anti-Semitism




					nationalpost.com
				




 Just a FEW examples.  Of course Tinmore sees nothing wrong with this


----------



## P F Tinmore

My Beit Daras My Nakba: Two Palestinian intellectuals reminiscing about their destroyed village​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Does Israel Want To Annex The West Bank?'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Christians That Nobody is Talking About​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Why Does Israel Want To Annex The West Bank?'​







__





						Ehud Olmert’s Peace Offer
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
				




  Another lie.  Israel offered approx 95 % of the West Bank to Abbas


Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.
No one would have sovereignty in the holy basin in Jerusalem containing sites holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians, including the Mount of Olives, the City of David and part of the Arab neighborhood of Silwan. This area “would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.
     We all know why ABBAS refuses no sovereignty in Holy Sites; because that way he wouldn't have control preventing Jews from visiting their Religious Sites the way Jordan did





PA officials: Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall









						Attempts to Claim the Western Wall as Muslim Holy Site Are Absurd
					

The Birkat HaCohanim (“priestly blessing” in Hebrew) at the Western Wall in 1995. Photo: Moshe Milner/the Israeli government press office …




					www.algemeiner.com
				




        Can anyone imagine the International Uproar if Israel banned the Palestinians from visiting a religious site?  These are people Israel is to make " peace" with?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

References to Jews in the Koran
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
				




Is this


P F Tinmore said:


>











						List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2021 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  This (Media Dramatization) is a complete and utter fallacy of inaccurate or manipulated information that is presented with the intention to deceive the target audience.






P F Tinmore said:


> Breaking Down  Israeli Lies


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Commentator and Host slings around terms like "murder" • "ethnic cleansing" • and • "genocide" as if the Israeli-Palestine Conflict could possibly be compared to the WWII Holocaust or the Hutu • Tutsi Conflict.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  If there is an act of eradication, it is nothing less than the total destruction of the truth by the pro-Palestinians and anti-Israeli • drama queens that author this crap.
.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This (Media Dramatization) is a complete and utter fallacy of inaccurate or manipulated information that is presented with the intention to deceive the target audience.
> View attachment 535579
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The Commentator and Host slings around terms like "murder" • "ethnic cleansing" • and • "genocide" as if the Israeli-Palestine Conflict could possibly be compared to the WWII Holocaust or the Hutu • Tutsi Conflict.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  If there is an act of eradication, it is nothing less than the total destruction of the truth by the pro-Palestinians and anti-Israeli • drama queens that author this crap.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


They just don't get it that Israel has the capability to annihilate the Palestinians but lack the desire whereas the Palestinians have the desire to annihilate the Israeli's but lack the capability.  Long overdo for Israel to stop placating Palestinian demands & treat them like their own Arab brothers do who know the Palestinians best.


----------



## P F Tinmore

An Interview with Professor Emadeddin Hamrouni on Nakba Day and War in Middle East​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> An Interview with Professor Emadeddin Hamrouni on Nakba Day and War in Middle East​


YAWN… Here we go again….  Claiming Israel has no right to exist. Can’t he find some new material?  Lol


----------



## P F Tinmore

14. Students for Justice in Palestine: The past, present and future of the student movement for the liberation of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

A Palestinian View of the IHRA Definition​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> A Palestinian View of the IHRA Definition​








						Antisemitism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




As usual, Tinmore is lying. He's trying to convince people that those who accuse others of Antisemitism object to criticism about Israel.  The individual who is speaking is a Palestinian who lives in London










						Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe, latest figures show
					

France reports 74% rise in offences against Jews and Germany records 60% surge in violent attacks




					www.theguardian.com
				




Just ONE example 
Let's assume one object to Israel's politics.  Is that any reason to attack a innocent person , paint reminders of the Holocaust, etc, etc?  Tinmore will have a " reasonable explanation"  A little while ago he claimed there was no Antisemitism in Canada and I called him on it.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> 14. Students for Justice in Palestine: The past, present and future of the student movement for the liberation of Palestine.


YAWN.... " Right of Return" will never happen. Knock yourself out


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Antisemitism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, Tinmore is lying. He's trying to convince people that those who accuse others of Antisemitism object to criticism about Israel.  The individual who is speaking is a Palestinian who lives in London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe, latest figures show
> 
> 
> France reports 74% rise in offences against Jews and Germany records 60% surge in violent attacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just ONE example
> Let's assume one object to Israel's politics.  Is that any reason to attack a innocent person , paint reminders of the Holocaust, etc, etc?  Tinmore will have a " reasonable explanation"  A little while ago he claimed there was no Antisemitism in Canada and I called him on it.


I never said that.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> I never said that.


Your Mom


P F Tinmore said:


> I never said that.


 
The woman in the link spoke about those who criticize Israel use Antisemitism as a EXCUSE . Before 1948 it had been around for over 2000 years


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


YAWN……… Which is their goal. Thank you for clarifying they don’t believe in “ The two State Solution”


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> YAWN……… Which is their goal. Thank you for clarifying they don’t believe in “ The two State Solution”


Good point. Why should they give most of their country to colonial settlers?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I never said that.


You can rarely offer a coherent sentence. Instead, you endlessly dump these silly, islamic supremacist youtube videos.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Good point. Why should they give most of their country to colonial settlers?


"Their country"? 

What country? 

Islamic settler colonists never established a country. 

I'm sure you mean to press your nonsensical claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented "Pal'istan", but that's just ridiculous.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Good point. Why should they give most of their country to colonial settlers?


 Please tell us why Israel should “ come to the table” knowing what the end goal is with being denied access to their Holy Sites?
  Why would they purposefully put themselves in a worse situation then they were before 1967?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Please tell us why Israel should “ come to the table” knowing what the end goal is with being denied access to their Holy Sites?
> Why would they purposefully put themselves in a worse situation then they were before 1967?


Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. During the Mandate period, they were offered a single state solution. It was rejected. After the '67 war, Israel was offered a single state solution. It was rejected. Many pushed for a two state solution, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that was never going to happen.

There are only two options left. Single state or apartheid.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. During the Mandate period, they were offered a single state solution. It was rejected. After the '67 war, Israel was offered a single state solution. It was rejected. Many pushed for a two state solution, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that was never going to happen.
> 
> There are only two options left. Single state or apartheid.


That long, tedious copy and paste doesn't address why Isrealis would have any reason to abandon their first-world economy and society in favor of a single state drenched in retrograde Islamists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin: Israeli War Crimes Against Palestinians, an In-Depth Look  'Gaza Fights For Freedom'​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Abby Martin: Israeli War Crimes Against Palestinians, an In-Depth Look  'Gaza Fights For Freedom'​



Actually, no, dear. Islamic ideology brings freedom for no one. The brutush, fascist, all-consuming politico-religious ideology has never brought freedom.



			https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/pdf/PDF_06_032_2.pdf
		


The main points of the Hamas charter:

 The conflict with Israeli is religious and political: The Palestinian problem
is a religious-political Muslim problem and the conflict with Israel is between
Muslims and the Jewish “infidels.”

 All Palestine is Muslim land and no one has the right to give it up: The
land of Palestine is sacred Muslim land and no one, including Arab rulers, has
the authority to give up any of it.

 The importance of jihad (holy war) as the main means for the Islamic
Resistance Movement (Hamas) to achieve its goals: An uncompromising jihad must be waged against Israel and any agreement recognizing its right to exist must be totally opposed. Jihad is the personal duty of every Muslim.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Good point. Why should they give most of their country to colonial settlers?



When two or more parties " negotiate" about anything; Whether it be Countries, Companies, etc. etc. each party hopes to get something out of it.
Tell us please why it's in Israel's best interest to come to a mutual solution 
 Israel was offered a One State Solution?   Link, please 


Readers React: Why Israel can never accept a one-state solution

   Tell us please if Israel was desperate enough to do it was assurances would they be given that they would have a say in any form of Gov't starting at even the local level

     Last but not least, the Palestinians would have full control over Jewish Sacred and Religious Sites


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. During the Mandate period, they were offered a single state solution. It was rejected. After the '67 war, Israel was offered a single state solution. It was rejected. Many pushed for a two state solution, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that was never going to happen.
> 
> There are only two options left. Single state or apartheid.



The Arabs initiated the War to destroy Israel.  Israel won.  Please tell us why Israel was " offered" this deal or better yet why they should have accepted giving up their State so it could be taken over by those who tried to destroy it 
Links to both, please


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The Arabs initiated the War to destroy Israel. Israel won.


No they didn't.
No they didn't.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The changing role of Palestine in Canadian politics​
​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> No they didn't.





P F Tinmore said:


> No they didn't.


Nasser initiated the War by closing the Straits. Syria was using the Israelis as target practice. You can DENY all you want…. Those are the facts. BTW. Where are those links ?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  Well, I'm not sure who you are implying as being mentally deficient; but, this statement here is both ambiguous and expansive in time → to a degree → three generations beyond the UN Recommendations for the implementation of a Two-State Solution and the establishment of an International City State.  In fact, you could not adequately describe the political atmosphere of a single generation in the three sentences you offer here as being remotely of any intellectual value.

◈    Who offered, with any credible authority, a Single-State Solution to Israel?​◈    Again, the Mandate Period being between 1922 - 1948, who made an offer to Israel _(which only came into existence in 1948)_ what Single-State Solution?​◈    And again, after the Six-Day War, WHO made an offer of a Single-State Solution?​


P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. During the Mandate period, they were offered a single state solution. It was rejected. After the '67 war, Israel was offered a single state solution. It was rejected. Many pushed for a two state solution, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that was never going to happen.
> 
> There are only two options left. Single state or apartheid.


*(COMMENT)*
.
It is a very strange notion, altogether, that there are only two possibilities that remain:

◈    Single-State Solution​​◈    Apartheid (astonishing!)​
Who in the hell would not recognize this as a dilemma of a false premise → as of a false dichotomy → as a fallacy.  There have to be more than two possibilities; even, if it is the _status quo_ of a regional conflict. Theoretically, there must be the additional possibility of a Thee-State Solution.

It is important that the Quartet _(United Nations, United States, European Union, and Russia Federation)_ or its successor, be able to think beyond this two-premise limitation.

AND →  it is extremely important that the Quartet be able to advance beyond the nonsense of "apartheid" - that being a Red Mediterranean Sunfish (_I would say Red Herring, but the most common fish in the Region is the Sunfish_)(a little humor there).

​

			
				Crimes Against Humanity • [/FONT]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[FONT=arial] said:
			
		

> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
> *SOURCE LINK*




As you all know (you don't have to be a "Rocket Scientist" to recognize that citizenship in Israel is many times more diverse than that of the territories under discussion.  I think even those scholars at the White House could figure that out.  The Arab Palestinian claim of "Apartheid" is merely an attempt to apply a despicable label to the Israelis.  But, intellectually, it has no real value.  It sticks only because the users do not know the definition of the claim.  It has nothing to do with the truth.  There is no single racial group on the Israeli side of the sovereign boundary trying to oppress a racial group on the Palestinian side of the boundary.  And being Israeli is NOT a racial group.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative Solutions
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, I'm not sure who you are implying as being mentally deficient; but, this statement here is both ambiguous and expansive in time → to a degree → three generations beyond the UN Recommendations for the implementation of a Two-State Solution and the establishment of an International City State.  In fact, you could not adequately describe the political atmosphere of a single generation in the three sentences you offer here as being remotely of any intellectual value.
> 
> ◈    Who offered, with any credible authority, a Single-State Solution to Israel?​◈    Again, the Mandate Period being between 1922 - 1948, who made an offer to Israel _(which only came into existence in 1948)_ what Single-State Solution?​◈    And again, after the Six-Day War, WHO made an offer of a Single-State Solution?​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It is a very strange notion, altogether, that there are only two possibilities that remain:
> 
> ◈    Single-State Solution​​◈    Apartheid (astonishing!)​
> Who in the hell would not recognize this as a dilemma of a false premise → as of a false dichotomy → as a fallacy.  There have to be more than two possibilities; even, if it is the _status quo_ of a regional conflict. Theoretically, there must be the additional possibility of a Thee-State Solution.
> 
> It is important that the Quartet _(United Nations, United States, European Union, and Russia Federation)_ or its successor, be able to think beyond this two-premise limitation.
> 
> AND →  it is extremely important that the Quartet be able to advance beyond the nonsense of "apartheid" - that being a Red Mediterranean Sunfish (_I would say Red Herring, but the most common fish in the Region is the Sunfish_)(a little humor there).
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> As you all know (you don't have to be a "Rocket Scientist" to recognize that citizenship in Israel is many times more diverse than that of the territories under discussion.  I think even those scholars at the White House could figure that out.  The Arab Palestinian claim of "Apartheid" is merely an attempt to apply a despicable label to the Israelis.  But, intellectually, it has no real value.  It sticks only because the users do not know the definition of the claim.  It has nothing to do with the truth.  There is no single racial group on the Israeli side of the sovereign boundary trying to oppress a racial group on the Palestinian side of the boundary.  And being Israeli is NOT a racial group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


This is the first time I realize he is totally delusional; especially his claim that a SINGLE STATE solution was offered AFTER the 67 War!
  Why would the Israelis even consider such a thing knowing that those who would be the majority are their Worst enemies!
  Who would be in charge of this “ State?” Being such a minority, how can the Israelis be assured their religious rights would be protected especially having access to their religious sites? There will be no response


----------



## P F Tinmore

Meltdowns and Knock Offs​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


Know when a person has nothing to say? When he repeats himself with EXACTLY the same post


----------



## Hollie

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> This is the first time I realize he is totally delusional; especially his claim that a SINGLE STATE solution was offered AFTER the 67 War!
> Why would the Israelis even consider such a thing knowing that those who would be the majority are their Worst enemies!
> Who would be in charge of this “ State?” Being such a minority, how can the Israelis be assured their religious rights would be protected especially having access to their religious sites? There will be no response


There's a pattern here. Ten years of the delusional claim about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pal'istan", which it did not, along with claimed "new states", none of which exist. 

It's best just to leave him to his cut and paste youtube videos.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Meltdowns and Knock Offs​



But enough about your frantic cutting and pasting of youtube videos.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Reclaiming Arab Judaism with Hadar Cohen​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Reclaiming Arab Judaism with Hadar Cohen​











						Antisemitism Uncovered: Antisemitism in Global History
					

Across continents and centuries, Jews have faced persecution and scapegoating that persists through present day.




					antisemitism.adl.org
				





Christian Persecution of Jews over the Centuries — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Again, he lies.  Antisemitism has been around for Centuries A few SMALL examples


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Antisemitism Uncovered: Antisemitism in Global History
> 
> 
> Across continents and centuries, Jews have faced persecution and scapegoating that persists through present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antisemitism.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian Persecution of Jews over the Centuries — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
> 
> Again, he lies.  Antisemitism has been around for Centuries A few SMALL examples


What is it like to be hated everyplace you go?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What is it like to be hated everyplace you go?


What is it like to be proven you are a LIAR;  Antisemitism is REAL and has nothing to do with the State of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mizrahi Identity in the US​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> What is it like to be proven you are a LIAR;  Antisemitism is REAL and has nothing to do with the State of Israel?


As usual, Tinmore has no answer. Now, THAT is funny.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​


----------



## P F Tinmore

When We Were Arabs with Massoud Hayoun​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> When We Were Arabs with Massoud Hayoun​


YAWN


----------



## P F Tinmore

Land Back & back to the land with Lyla June​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sheikh Jarrah: Settler colonialism, media coverage, and forced expulsions​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Join the South Florida Coalition for Palestine as we launch a boycott campaign against Duty Free Americas until they stop funding Israeli apartheid and the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes and land!


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Join the South Florida Coalition for Palestine as we launch a boycott campaign against Duty Free Americas until they stop funding Israeli apartheid and the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes and land!


YAWN……


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

7th Education Webinar | Forgotten Palestinians: Strangers in Their Homeland​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel's Liberal Settler State​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>





P F Tinmore said:


> Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel's Liberal Settler State​


YAWN


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>



Why did Israel act? See below








						IDF says it hit 130 targets in Gaza overnight after 200 rockets fired at Israel
					

Massive barrage targets Ashkelon at dawn as Hamas threatens to turn city 'into hell'; Hamas says 20 killed in attacks




					www.timesofisrael.com
				





Palestinians were " offended" because there was a chant " Death to Palestinians?"  Far worse have been said about the Jews










						Abbas: ‘We Welcome Every Drop of Blood Spilled in Jerusalem’
					

In The Wall Street Journal, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely writes about the generations of Palestinans devoted to the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel.




					www.wsj.com
				




At Brooklyn pro-Palestine rally, calls to eliminate both Israel and US









						Iranians chant 'Death to Israel', burn Islamic State's flag at rallies: TV
					

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" in nationwide rallies on Friday at which they also burned flag of the Islamic State militant group which claimed responsibility for attacks in Tehran this month, state TV reported.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Op-Ed:  What ordinary Palestinians think about Jews, Israel and violence
					

Since early last month, more than 80 attacks by Palestinians have claimed the lives of a dozen Israelis and wounded nearly 200.




					www.latimes.com
				



ETC. ETC. ETC.

BTW, E JERUSALEM IS NOT OCCUPIED. UP UNTIL 67 IT WAS OFFICIALLY PART OF JORDAN   IT WAS FORMALLY ANNEXED APRIL 24, 1950


----------



## P F Tinmore

What's Behind Shifting U.S. Politics on Palestine, and Where is it Going?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Solidarity & Activism Beyond 2020​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What's Behind Shifting U.S. Politics on Palestine, and Where is it Going?​


It’s not going anywhere


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF:  This is just another case of Arab Palestinians looking backwards instead of forwards.



P F Tinmore said:


> Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel's Liberal Settler State​


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians are desperately trying to apply 21st Century political theories into a perception of history, starting with the San Remo Convention and much, much later - the recommendations adopted by the General Assembly more than a half-century ago.

Absolutely no one in the ranks of the Arab Palestinians is capable of looking forward.  Most of them don't know why they started the conflict or what they hoped to "realistically" achive.

Remember the Thousands and Thousands that demonstrated their "Right to Return."  You would have to be over 70 y/o to have actually resided inside Israeli Sovereign territory.   I hate to tell you, but only 2.68% of the population in the Gaza Strip is over the age of 65.  






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Absolutely no one in the ranks of the Arab Palestinians is capable of looking forward. Most of them don't know why they started the conflict


They didn't. You are full of shit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The sabotage campaign against Palestine solidarity with Max Blumenthal | EI Podcast​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: This is a critique against Israeli Counter Propaganda material.



P F Tinmore said:


> The sabotage campaign against Palestine solidarity with Max Blumenthal | EI Podcast​


*(COMMENT)*

This (40th) Episode from the *Electronic Intifada (ei),* a pro-Palestinian Podcast (Chicago) that opens with a short monolog from Max Blumenthal (*Gray Zone*) prior to the program introductions prior to the Podcast identification, cast, and guest being introduced.  I have to admit, that Blumenthal is a smooth talker.  But from the very beginning, the program becomes a platform for Palestinians _(__flashing heartbreaking → in a Gettyimage fashion → picture montage__)_ crushing assault on the Israelis for mounting a counter-propaganda effort.

Blumenthal refers to the American Jews as the most "affluent, entitled, and hyper-privileged people on the planet."  And I wonder if that qualifies as being a self-identified hostile that is prejudice against Jewish people (_as a people of faith_).  He makes the accusation that the Israels present "deceptive videos" and "videos without context" and using unsubstantiated allegations.  He says this effect creates a kind of "general hysteria" on the Israeli people. AND THE - I had to chuckle in that having the Palestinians around is a glue that binds the Israelis together.

If you are "haunted" by the ghosts Jews or are being supernaturally drawn into the shadows fearing the Jews and anti-semitism, or know someone how is STOP_*!*_  There is hope:



​
I'll dust off my doctorate degree (_somewhere here in the closet_) and directly address your demons.  Because this video is nothing but a bunch of phantasms and apparitions that you need to be chased away.  I cost about two Cokes an hour (near frozen).  I have an SDR capable of Spectrum Analysis to capture and identify any evil Palestinian specter that might be whispering in your ear.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Absent an Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: In the last ≈ 70+ I simply cannot remember when the "Arab Palestinians" ever presented a "real and viable" *Peace Plan* of their own.

RoccoR said:
Absolutely no one in the ranks of the Arab Palestinians is capable of looking forward. Most of them don't know why they started the conflict


P F Tinmore said:


> They didn't. You are full of shit.


*(COMMENT)*

◈    The Israelis made an offer for peace.​◈    The Russian made a contribution.​◈    The Americans presented their plan.​◈    The quartet provided a forum for peace.​◈    The Suadi Arabians introduced a plan.​
Where has the Arab Palestinian offered their own plan?

I can recall the use of the Armistice Line.
I bantering about the 4 June 1967 Line.

*(Particular to the 4 June Line)*

"The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

But even that is retrograde thinks.  The Green Line was only relevant until 26 October 1994, because it was only in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

The Treaty did not use the Green Line.  The International boundary between Israel and Jordan roughly follows the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.

In 1994, there was no identifiable government between Israel and Jordan.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> They didn't. You are full of shit.


As writing a coherent sentence is a struggle for you, I might suggest you keep your posting to cutting and pasting youtube videos?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ The Israelis made an offer for peace.


Without conditions?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Where has the Arab Palestinian offered their own plan?


Plenty of times. Always ignored.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> As writing a coherent sentence is a struggle for you, I might suggest you keep your posting to cutting and pasting youtube videos?


My post was quite coherent.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> My post was quite coherent.


Can you post a youtube video to support that?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Without conditions?


What “ offer” did the Palestinians make?  Tell us please just ONE proposition that put forward


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


> Can you post a youtube video to support when that?


I believe he is referring to the


P F Tinmore said:


> Plenty of times. Always ignored.


I believe he is referring to the “ Saudi Peace Plan”  When asked why Israel should even consider it ( it would put them in a worse position then they were in ‘67 ) there will be no response


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> I believe he is referring to the
> 
> I believe he is referring to the “ Saudi Peace Plan”  When asked why Israel should even consider it ( it would put them in a worse position then they were in ‘67 ) there will be no response


No, the Saudi Peace Plan was the classic two state "solution" that was never going to happen.

Solution to what?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> No, the Saudi Peace Plan was the classic two state "solution" that was never going to happen.
> 
> Solution to what?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Please tell us what Israel has to gain from this


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


Israel will cease fire when Hamas stops shooting Rockets into Israel.  Biden can't even manage OUR borders yet you expect him to manage the Israeli/ Palestinian issue over 7000 Miles away?
   Do you have ANY idea how STUPID your post is?


----------



## P F Tinmore

How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine?​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine?​











						Murders Rose Last Year. Black and Hispanic Neighborhoods Were Hit Hardest.
					

A COVID-strained social safety net. Entrenched distrust between cops and communities of color. "2020 was a tinderbox."




					www.themarshallproject.org
				




" Black  Lives Matter?"  LOL!!!!!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  Actually, there is the possibility for:

Remain in Conflict.                   (Status Quo)
One-State Solution                   (Either Israel or Palestine)
Two-State Solution                   (Israel, Palestine)
Three State (or more) Solution (Israeli, Gaza, West Bank)



P F Tinmore said:


> Solution
> No, the Saudi Peace Plan was the classic two state "solution" that was never going to happen.
> 
> Solution to what?


*(COMMENT)*

In my opinion, the only reasonable solution within reach at this time (_given the political stance taken_) are Solution 1; Remain in the status quo — and - Solution 4; The Solution of Three States or more.

Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis are going to accept a solution which in the end, places one or the other in a dominant position.  





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are attitudes towards Palestine shifting in the US?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  Actually, there is the possibility for:
> 
> Remain in Conflict.                   (Status Quo)
> One-State Solution                   (Either Israel or Palestine)
> Two-State Solution                   (Israel, Palestine)
> Three State (or more) Solution (Israeli, Gaza, West Bank)
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, the only reasonable solution within reach at this time (_given the political stance taken_) are Solution 1; Remain in the status quo — and - Solution 4; The Solution of Three States or more.
> 
> Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis are going to accept a solution which in the end, places one or the other in a dominant position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Solution to what?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Are attitudes towards Palestine shifting in the US?​











						UN report outlines how Hamas used kids as human shields
					

The headlines in most places were entirely predictable: “UN Says Israel Killed 44 Palestinians in Schools During Gaza War.” That was indeed one finding of a UN report published Monday — but only pa…




					nypost.com


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  Yeah, I thought that the response would be along those lines.



P F Tinmore said:


> Solution to what?


*(COMMENT)*
.
You can bet your ass it is NOT over the "Right of Return."  The "Palestinians have claimed that Israel engaged in illegal ethnic cleansing, and that international law provides a “right of return” for the refugees displaced during what they call al-Nakbah (the catastrophe)." (*EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS’ CLAIMED RIGHT OF RETURN, by ANDREW KENT, Fordham University*)


Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "TODAY?"

_*Article 12. *__*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​
Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"

NONE​
There was none.  There were several documents that came "AFTER" the "al-Nakbah;" but nothing that was binding before the al-Nakbah.   So, who is fighting?   And what are they for what?

Like I have said before.  There is a disconnect between the generations.  Even the White House is confused.  But there is a principle of law:

*Article 24* *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*​_Non-retroactivity ratione personae_​
No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
So, the question arises again; what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  Yeah, I thought that the response would be along those lines.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> You can bet your ass it is NOT over the "Right of Return."  The "Palestinians have claimed that Israel engaged in illegal ethnic cleansing, and that international law provides a “right of return” for the refugees displaced during what they call al-Nakbah (the catastrophe)." (*EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS’ CLAIMED RIGHT OF RETURN, by ANDREW KENT, Fordham University*)
> 
> 
> Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "TODAY?"
> 
> _*Article 12. *__*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​
> Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"
> 
> NONE​
> There was none.  There were several documents that came "AFTER" the "al-Nakbah;" but nothing that was binding before the al-Nakbah.   So, who is fighting?   And what are they for what?
> 
> Like I have said before.  There is a disconnect between the generations.  Even the White House is confused.  But there is a principle of law:
> 
> *Article 24* *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*​_Non-retroactivity ratione personae_​
> No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
> In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
> So, the question arises again; what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.

The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

They are the sovereigns of that territory.

Private and communal property belong to the people.

The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.

Any violations of these principals require a remedy.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.
> 
> The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.
> 
> They are the sovereigns of that territory.
> 
> Private and communal property belong to the people.
> 
> The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.
> 
> Any violations of these principals require a remedy.



Culling such nonsense from youtube videos.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  Well, your application is compromised.  You are mixing the concepts of National and Individual and Territorial Sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


> Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.


*(COMMENT)*

Oh please!



P F Tinmore said:


> The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, that is dependent on what country laws are in play.  Your defined territory may vary from other defined territories. 

The United States is a defined territory.  The people must follow the legislated law enacted.  The territory can be altered by extending national sovereignty or discarding such territory as may be decided by the federal government.

The International Civil Law stipulates:   "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence."  In the case of the originally defined territory by the mandate, this territory changed in both shape and size several times.



P F Tinmore said:


> They are the sovereigns of that territory.


*(COMMENT)*

That is certainly NOT true in all cases. 

The sovereign of Saudi Arabia is quite different from the sovereign of its neighbors Jordan or Iraq.

The territory under Mandate went through several iterations of the boundaries, shapes, sizes, and national authorities.   The territory under the mandate was subject to redistribution processes.



P F Tinmore said:


> Private and communal property belong to the people.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this varies; but, in general, this is a rule of thumb.  Private property _(the legal term)_ is _(in general)_ that owned by an entity other than the government.



P F Tinmore said:


> The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a cliché and NOT a legal principle.



P F Tinmore said:


> Any violations of these principals require a remedy.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, you are trying to apply a compulsory action.  But rectification is not an absolute necessity in all deviations from that standard.  And rectification may not be desirable given the adverse possible outcomes that might result.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, your application is compromised.  You are mixing the concepts of National and Individual and Territorial Sovereignty.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Oh please!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is dependent on what country laws are in play.  Your defined territory may vary from other defined territories.
> 
> The United States is a defined territory.  The people must follow the legislated law enacted.  The territory can be altered by extending national sovereignty or discarding such territory as may be decided by the federal government.
> 
> The International Civil Law stipulates:   "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence."  In the case of the originally defined territory by the mandate, this territory changed in both shape and size several times.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is certainly NOT true in all cases.
> 
> The sovereign of Saudi Arabia is quite different from the sovereign of its neighbors Jordan or Iraq.
> 
> The territory under Mandate went through several iterations of the boundaries, shapes, sizes, and national authorities.   The territory under the mandate was subject to redistribution processes.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this varies; but, in general, this is a rule of thumb.  Private property _(the legal term)_ is _(in general)_ that owned by an entity other than the government.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a cliché and NOT a legal principle.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are trying to apply a compulsory action.  But rectification is not an absolute necessity in all deviations from that standard.  And rectification may not be desirable given the adverse possible outcomes that might result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


 P F Tinmore said: 


           The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory. 

Can you think of a place where that is not true?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF: Before you ask such questions, you should read what "national" means.  You should read what the convention says.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.
> 
> Can you think of a place where that is not true?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

Here is what a "national" is and here is what the Convention says.

*national*      A person enjoying the nationality of a given State. ‘[A]s stated in Article 1 of​the Hague Convention of 1930 on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality​Laws [ 179 L.N.T.S. 89 ], while it is for each State to determine under its own law who are​its nationals, such law must be recognised by other States only “in so far as it is consistent​with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally​recognised with regard to nationality”’: I Oppenheim 852 and 853 . In certain municipal​systems, notably that of the United States, the term ‘nationals’ has been used to designate​persons enjoying narrower rights than those described as citizens: I Oppenheim 856​and 857 .​*SOURCE:* Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and​J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. pp 401​​CHAPTER I​GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 1​*CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS*​_*THE HAGUE*_ - 12 APRIL 1930​It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.​
Nothing has changed the law.  Israel _(and every other country on the planet)_ can determine who is a national of their sovereign territory.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> BLUF: Before you ask such questions, you should read what "national" means.  You should read what the convention says.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Here is what a "national" is and here is what the Convention says.
> 
> *national*      A person enjoying the nationality of a given State. ‘[A]s stated in Article 1 of​the Hague Convention of 1930 on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality​Laws [ 179 L.N.T.S. 89 ], while it is for each State to determine under its own law who are​its nationals, such law must be recognised by other States only “in so far as it is consistent​with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally​recognised with regard to nationality”’: I Oppenheim 852 and 853 . In certain municipal​systems, notably that of the United States, the term ‘nationals’ has been used to designate​persons enjoying narrower rights than those described as citizens: I Oppenheim 856​and 857 .​*SOURCE:* Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and​J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. pp 401​​CHAPTER I​GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 1​*CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS*​_*THE HAGUE*_ - 12 APRIL 1930​It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.​
> Nothing has changed the law.  Israel _(and every other country on the planet)_ can determine who is a national of their sovereign territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You are making a lot of monkey motions trying to make a point.

When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?

Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.

The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does *not* apply to natural citizens.

There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF:  You are grasping at 100 year old straws.



P F Tinmore said:


> When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?


*(COMMENT)*

The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
 Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred."  The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people."  Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.  

The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.

Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State.  The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.

I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.


*(COMMENT)*

IF you go back to *Posting #2170*, you will find that the 1930 *Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws* (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:

"It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​
I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.


P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does *not* apply to natural citizens.


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence.  And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate. 



P F Tinmore said:


> There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.


*(COMMENT)*

And I am not sure what you point is here.   And I'm not sure you are even correct here.  For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored.  Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.

I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth."  NOT a natural Citizen.  There are four types of US Citizenship:

*◈    Citizenship through Birth*​*◈    Citizenship through Acquisition*​*◈    Citizenship through Derivation*​*◈    Citizenship through Naturalization*​
I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."

There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You are making a lot of monkey motions trying to make a point.
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?
> 
> Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.
> 
> The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does *not* apply to natural citizens.
> 
> There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.


When you make false and ridiculous claims such as the Treaty of Lausanne invented a country you call "Palistan'' as well as inventing other ''new states'', the ''monkey motions'' are yours. 

What differentiates a ''natural'' from ''un-natural'' citizen? 

Can you find a youtube video to explain that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
> Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred."


And this applied to every new state in the area except Palestine?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."


The natives are always jerked around. There is nothing new about that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence. And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.


Links?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> And this applied to every new state in the area except Palestine?
> 
> Link?


Pal'istan was a ''state''?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> BLUF:  You are grasping at 100 year old straws.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
> Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred."  The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people."  Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.
> 
> The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.
> 
> Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State.  The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.
> 
> I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IF you go back to *Posting #2170*, you will find that the 1930 *Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws* (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:
> 
> "It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​
> I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence.  And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And I am not sure what you point is here.   And I'm not sure you are even correct here.  For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored.  Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.
> 
> I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth."  NOT a natural Citizen.  There are four types of US Citizenship:
> 
> *◈    Citizenship through Birth*​*◈    Citizenship through Acquisition*​*◈    Citizenship through Derivation*​*◈    Citizenship through Naturalization*​
> I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."
> 
> There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


What part of *all that* refutes my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> BLUF:  You are grasping at 100 year old straws.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
> Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred."  The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people."  Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.
> 
> The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.
> 
> Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State.  The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.
> 
> I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IF you go back to *Posting #2170*, you will find that the 1930 *Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws* (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:
> 
> "It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​
> I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence.  And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And I am not sure what you point is here.   And I'm not sure you are even correct here.  For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored.  Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.
> 
> I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth."  NOT a natural Citizen.  There are four types of US Citizenship:
> 
> *◈    Citizenship through Birth*​*◈    Citizenship through Acquisition*​*◈    Citizenship through Derivation*​*◈    Citizenship through Naturalization*​
> I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."
> 
> There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Palestinians became Palestinians by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.

Who has the authority, or what foreigners have the authority, to change that?

Links?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians became Palestinians by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.
> 
> Who has the authority, or what foreigners have the authority, to change that?
> 
> Links?


The Treaty of Lausanne invented the ''country of Pal'istan'' and invented Pal'istanians by inventing Pal'istanians?

That is one flaming conspiracy theory.

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> And this applied to every new state in the area except Palestine?
> 
> Link?



*THE LINK*:  *Excerpt • 2012 Memo • UN Legal Affairs Ofc*




​


P F Tinmore said:


> What part of *all that* refutes my post?


*(COMMENT)*

Each one of your centeral assertions was challenged in Posting 2172.  Your application of the _*Ostrich Effect *_is getting tiresome.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> *THE LINK*:  *Excerpt • 2012 Memo • UN Legal Affairs Ofc*
> 
> View attachment 544038​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each one of your centeral assertions was challenged in Posting 2172.  Your application of the _*Ostrich Effect *_is getting tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


And the UN still believes in the long dead two state solution.

I don't see your point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> And the UN still believes in the long dead two state solution.
> 
> I don't see your point.


BTW, solution to what?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF:  Nothing was changed because neither assertion is true.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians became Palestinians by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.
> 
> Who has the authority, or what foreigners have the authority, to change that?
> 
> Links?


*(COMMENT)*

Under *Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne*, wherein "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."   

The Government of Palestine was established as an administrative framework for the Allied Powers (the parties concerned).  It was an entity and NOT an independent state.  The Arab Palestinians (*for whatever reason - it being their choice - thus their fault*) declined to start the process of creating self-governing institutions.

It should be noted that the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory" were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that surrendered.  The were under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint military administration over Levantine provinces before coming under the Civil Administration.

The fact the Allied Powers were essentially foreign to the Levantine Provinces has no being on the situation.  The "are Palestinians were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that " renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> BLUF:  Nothing was changed because neither assertion is true.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under *Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne*, wherein "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
> 
> The Government of Palestine was established as an administrative framework for the Allied Powers (the parties concerned).  It was an entity and NOT an independent state.  The Arab Palestinians (*for whatever reason - it being their choice - thus their fault*) declined to start the process of creating self-governing institutions.
> 
> It should be noted that the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory" were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that surrendered.  The were under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint military administration over Levantine provinces before coming under the Civil Administration.
> 
> The fact the Allied Powers were essentially foreign to the Levantine Provinces has no being on the situation.  The "are Palestinians were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that " renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


The land went to the respective territories and the prople went with it. It was a package deal. The Allied Powers were outside of that loop.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Solution
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: The _*Negotiation Affairs Department *_sets the nine central issue for which the Conflict attempts to force a solution.



​


P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, solution to what?


*(COMMENT)*

Of the nine Central Issues, over half have been a part of the "_*Permanent Status of Negotiations*_" (PSN) for over a quarter of a century.  And the Arab Palestinians have consistently ignored the PSN process all this time.  And while the Arab Palestinians claim that they abandon the Three No's (_*no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel*_) their actions have demonstrated they still implement this policy (by other means and names).

So when you ask, a solution to what, is depends on the aspect angle you view the question.

◈  I*F* you are viewing the question from the Israeli side, *THEN* it is all about protecting the citizenry from attack, and to maintain free trade and commerce.  It is also about the continued defense against the outcomes to the incitement to violence and the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.​​*◈  IF *you are viewing the question from Arab Palestinian side, *THEN* it is to maintain a steady flow of monetary donations, and a hold on the power and influence over the unwitting general population of Arab Palestinians on the lower end of the economic development.​
While some people within the general population of the Arab Palestinians might say they are in a struggle for the Right to Return (RoR), the validity of this claim is tainted by the fact that only about 5% or less of the population is of an age that might have lived during the Israeli War of Independence.  So it is not reasonable to assume that the conflict is actually driven by the the Arab Palestinians RoR.  This aspect of the struggle is to maintain the status quo for criminal exploration purposes. 

If you listen to a vast majority of the views that you post, ask your self who are the complainants and what do they get out of it?






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Solution
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> The land went to the respective territories and the prople went with it. It was a package deal. The Allied Powers were outside of that loop.


*(COMMENT)*

You must have an attention deficit disorder.  As I said in _*Posting #2172*_, the actions were all about not creating "Stateless People."   You CAN NOT claim that the people of that portion of the Levant were citizens of the State of Palestine.  It simply had NOT been established yet.  I'm not exactly sure that it exists even today.

What loop?  There is NO loop.  The Allied Powers set the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Solution
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: The _*Negotiation Affairs Department *_sets the nine central issue for which the Conflict attempts to force a solution.
> 
> View attachment 544057​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of the nine Central Issues, over half have been a part of the "_*Permanent Status of Negotiations*_" (PSN) for over a quarter of a century.  And the Arab Palestinians have consistently ignored the PSN process all this time.  And while the Arab Palestinians claim that they abandon the Three No's (_*no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel*_) their actions have demonstrated they still implement this policy (by other means and names).
> 
> So when you ask, a solution to what, is depends on the aspect angle you view the question.
> 
> ◈  I*F* you are viewing the question from the Israeli side, *THEN* it is all about protecting the citizenry from attack, and to maintain free trade and commerce.  It is also about the continued defense against the outcomes to the incitement to violence and the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.​​*◈  IF *you are viewing the question from Arab Palestinian side, *THEN* it is to maintain a steady flow of monetary donations, and a hold on the power and influence over the unwitting general population of Arab Palestinians on the lower end of the economic development.​
> While some people within the general population of the Arab Palestinians might say they are in a struggle for the Right to Return (RoR), the validity of this claim is tainted by the fact that only about 5% or less of the population is of an age that might have lived during the Israeli War of Independence.  So it is not reasonable to assume that the conflict is actually driven by the the Arab Palestinians RoR.  This aspect of the struggle is to maintain the status quo for criminal exploration purposes.
> 
> If you listen to a vast majority of the views that you post, ask your self who are the complainants and what do they get out of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


The term solution implies that there is a problem to resolve.

What is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Allied Powers set the administration of the territory of Palestine,


Whose territory?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Solution
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  What do you make of this?



P F Tinmore said:


> Whose territory?


*(COMMENT)*

In 1920, the Allied Powers had not yet made a final determination on the disposition of the territory which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, _within such boundaries as may be fixed by them_.

By 1948/1949, the Disposition of the territory was throughly scrambled by the advent of Arab League Forces and the political decisions made by the principle actors.  The Arab League debacle has not yet been resolved.



P F Tinmore said:


> The term solution implies that there is a problem to resolve.
> 
> What is it?


*(COMMENT)*

Well, it could be a problem; or merely the perception of a problem.  It is actually a disagreement on territorial integrity and control.

I tend to think it is rather naive for you to believes that an individual such as yourself can correctly perceives the objects and events in the world and that is all that there is to perception.  I often think that the multi-political dimension of the issues revolving around the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace" is as difficult for you to comprehend as it is for others to transition between "relativity" and "quantum mechanics."

When you ask for a solution to the problem (_which was briefly defined in Posting #2186_) might be likened to the paradox of the Life Signs to Schrödinger’s Cat (_poor Ace: is he dead or alive_).  You are uncertain as to the Life Signs until you open the box.  But in the interim, "Ace" can be both dead and alive.  Will any politically accepted solution lead to "stabilized peace?"  Rarely do we observe in politics the acceptance of recommendations without other fingerprints on them.  In _*Posting #2144*_, we see five individual solutions.  If a single solution is selected, then the possibilities are one out of 5.  If a combination of 2 solutions occurs, then the possibilities becomes 9.  If the selection is a combination of 3, then the number of solutions, and so on.  And then, include the 9 major issue as noted by the Negotiation Affairs Department.

Now think about the number of moving parts when you look clinically at the  "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace."  I think there are about 6 active terrorist organizations that want their voice.  Add to the the Quartet, then add to that the Arab League States in close proximity.  And then, look at the outriders like the Quds Force or the Pakistani Clandestine Intelligence Service.  And then, that does not exclude the effect on the weapons trade and what they might have an impact on.

I sense a completely different set of variable that come into play.  Whereas, you tend to be a bit dogmatic.  You have undoubtedly read some grad-students paper on the issue that come to a conclusion amenable to your position.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Solution
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  What do you make of this?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1920, the Allied Powers had not yet made a final determination on the disposition of the territory which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, _within such boundaries as may be fixed by them_.
> 
> By 1948/1949, the Disposition of the territory was throughly scrambled by the advent of Arab League Forces and the political decisions made by the principle actors.  The Arab League debacle has not yet been resolved.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, it could be a problem; or merely the perception of a problem.  It is actually a disagreement on territorial integrity and control.
> 
> I tend to think it is rather naive for you to believes that an individual such as yourself can correctly perceives the objects and events in the world and that is all that there is to perception.  I often think that the multi-political dimension of the issues revolving around the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace" is as difficult for you to comprehend as it is for others to transition between "relativity" and "quantum mechanics."
> 
> When you ask for a solution to the problem (_which was briefly defined in Posting #2186_) might be likened to the paradox of the Life Signs to Schrödinger’s Cat (_poor Ace: is he dead or alive_).  You are uncertain as to the Life Signs until you open the box.  But in the interim, "Ace" can be both dead and alive.  Will any politically accepted solution lead to "stabilized peace?"  Rarely do we observe in politics the acceptance of recommendations without other fingerprints on them.  In _*Posting #2144*_, we see five individual solutions.  If a single solution is selected, then the possibilities are one out of 5.  If a combination of 2 solutions occurs, then the possibilities becomes 9.  If the selection is a combination of 3, then the number of solutions, and so on.  And then, include the 9 major issue as noted by the Negotiation Affairs Department.
> 
> Now think about the number of moving parts when you look clinically at the  "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace."  I think there are about 6 active terrorist organizations that want their voice.  Add to the the Quartet, then add to that the Arab League States in close proximity.  And then, look at the outriders like the Quds Force or the Pakistani Clandestine Intelligence Service.  And then, that does not exclude the effect on the weapons trade and what they might have an impact on.
> 
> I sense a completely different set of variable that come into play.  Whereas, you tend to be a bit dogmatic.  You have undoubtedly read some grad-students paper on the issue that come to a conclusion amenable to your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Thank you and that is why there is no peace,


----------



## P F Tinmore

Amer Zahr about Palestine,  2021 National Lawyers Guild Annual Meeting​


----------



## P F Tinmore

20th Anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism and the Durban Civil Society Declaration​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Losers trying to shut down the debates.*

Academic Speech and Freedom on Palestine Under Attack​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinian intellectual Joseph Massad joins the EI podcast for a wide-ranging discussion on the true role of the Palestinian Authority as Israel's collaborator.
*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 20th Anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism and the Durban Civil Society Declaration​



*QUESTION:*

Does it bother them that none of the Pali governments
EVER allow an African into their parliament?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is this the end of the Palestinian Authority?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hanan Ashrawi to MEE: Israel ‘wants to maintain an exclusivity over being the victim’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hamas senior leader Khaled Meshaal talks to MEE​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: PA Purpose
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

BLUF: Every now and then, one of these wise-asses inadvertently speaks the truth.



P F Tinmore said:


> Is this the end of the Palestinian Authority?​


*(COMMENT)*

This is a passage from the monologue rendered by Ms Hassan, a Human Rights Lawyer and former advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team.



			
				Zaha Hassan Pro-Palestinian Attorney at Large said:
			
		

> In the past, the Palestinian Authority has worked to repress Palestinians seeking to engage in direct action or resistance against the occupier, --- so if we are at the point of Annexation and if the two-state solution is not in the offing, then what is the role of the Palestinian Authority and for many Palestinians, they believe that it does not have a purpose at this point? --- and is the Palestine Liberation Organization the political address for Palestinians everywhere?



Well, Ms Hassan might as well have said "what is the role of the Palestinian Authority if not to ignore Customary and International Humanitarian Law (C&IHL)?" → In essence, the Human Rights Lawyer is asking → is the role of the Palestinian Authority's attempt to enforce C&IHL is counterproductive?  The C&IHL basically says that the Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, that constitutes an attempt to harm members of the occupying forces or administration, and collectively represent a danger or serious damage to the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, are violations of the C&IHL.

I think people like Ms Hassan, who are supposed to advocate in defense of the IHL, have lost sight of exactly the intent and spirit in the Rule of Law.  Is she making a contribution?  - OR - Is Ms Hassan inciting violence by implanting the idea that enforcement of the C&IHL is a bad thing to do.  Ms Hassan is actually promoting more violence - not less violence.  She is not working towards a peaceful solution. She is in point of fact, writing the Eulogy for the PA and the Oslo Accords. 

Ms Hassan is another one of these well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering reformers.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism​


Well finally! He does admit that Anti-Semitism exists. In the past he has denied it


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Hanan Ashrawi to MEE: Israel ‘wants to maintain an exclusivity over being the victim’​


Did you hear what he said? He mentioned the ROCKETS that were shot into Israel. Thank You


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Did you hear what he said? He mentioned the ROCKETS that were shot into Israel. Thank You


Tinmore thinks it’s funny. I’m glad he thinks it’s funny to give Israel a reason to bomb the hell out of Gaza. I think it’s hilarious myself


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

__





						What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’ | The Jewish Standard
					






					jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com
				




 When two or more parties enter a " agreement" both sides are to get some benefit from it.   Abbas stated his intentions.  Why would Israel even consider a " Two State Solution' when clearly that is not the end goal ?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Losers trying to shut down the debates.*
> 
> Academic Speech and Freedom on Palestine Under Attack​



Indeed, that's why the anti-normalization campaign,
focuses on discouraging real debate with opposing voices.

The rare instances when they dare participate in a discussion
is either with very like-minded people, or when they can overwhelm the other.

Can't handle a real debate, don't have the facts,
nor psychologically prepared to admit they're wrong.

*








						Stabbed for critiquing Islam | Tim Dieppe | The Critic Magazine
					

This Sunday at Speakers’ Corner, the well-known “home of free speech”, Christian evangelist Hatun Tash was brutally stabbed by a man wearing a black Islamic robe. Hatun collapsed with blood running…




					thecritic.co.uk
				



*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Academic Speech and Freedom [Thursday at 3:21 AM]
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Introduction: Before you make this allegation, first explain what you have lost.



			
				University of Maryland said:
			
		

> _What is Academic Freedom?_​In general, academic freedom is the right of faculty in the discharge of their duties to express their ideas and challenge the ideas of others without fear of retribution. This principle typically flows from a research university’s core mission which can include promoting inquiry and advancing human knowledge and understanding. While aspects of academic freedom are protected by the First Amendment, the principle pre-dates the Constitution. *It is a right often claimed by individual faculty members, but is primarily a right afforded to faculty members as a group.* It further serves as the basis for faculty input in institutional governance and derives from a shared professional expertise and training.





P F Tinmore said:


> *Losers trying to shut down the debates.*
> Academic Speech and Freedom on Palestine Under Attack​


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think that most people understand what this debate is about and encompasses.   I have a "doctorate" degree.,  But the discussion on "Academic Freedom" does not include me.  "It is not my right."  *Why?* *(RHETORICAL)*  Because I'm not on the staff or faculty _*(anywhere)*_.
So, before you start misusing the concept and philosophy - explain to me how YOU, or any on the panel, are impaired or otherwise affected by limitations or restrictions by the staff and faculty placed on the general population of the staff and faculty as a group. 

With Academic Speech and Freedom comes responsibility.  *Do you know what those responsibilities are*?  Don't just start waving around this claim of some "right" _(as Arab Palestinians do so very often)_ as if you are defending some particular privilege.

Get back to me when you understand the topic.  Then!  Tell me who the loser is...





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Academic Speech and Freedom [Thursday at 3:21 AM]
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Introduction: Before you make this allegation, first explain what you have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think that most people understand what this debate is about and encompasses.   I have a "doctorate" degree.,  But the discussion on "Academic Freedom" does not include me.  "It is not my right."  *Why?* *(RHETORICAL)*  Because I'm not on the staff or faculty _*(anywhere)*_.
> So, before you start misusing the concept and philosophy - explain to me how YOU, or any on the panel, are impaired or otherwise affected by limitations or restrictions by the staff and faculty placed on the general population of the staff and faculty as a group.
> 
> With Academic Speech and Freedom comes responsibility.  *Do you know what those responsibilities are*?  Don't just start waving around this claim of some "right" _(as Arab Palestinians do so very often)_ as if you are defending some particular privilege.
> 
> Get back to me when you understand the topic.  Then!  Tell me who the loser is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


I thought the video was quite clear. It probably just didn't jive with your cognitive dissonance.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> I thought the video was quite clear. It probably just didn't jive with your cognitive dissonance.


Talking about cognitive dissonance -

you accuse the only Jewish state of apartheid,  but demand Arab supremacy,
complain about freedom of speech, yet don't allow Jews and Africans in any govt.

​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Talking about cognitive dissonance -
> 
> you accuse the only Jewish state of apartheid,  but demand Arab supremacy,
> complain about freedom of speech, yet don't allow Jews and Africans in any govt.
> 
> ​


The fact that it is the Jewish state is irrelevant. It could be Hindu for all I care.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The fact that it is the Jewish state is irrelevant. It could be Hindu for all I care.


Just be honest about the teaching of your warlord ''prophet''.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



*Ya'Habibti...*

*Got what you asked for?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

This guy almost gets it.

BBC Middle East chief Jeremy Bowen on Israel-Palestine conflict, the latest flare-up and the future​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


The Reality on the Ground is that Rockets are constantly being shot into Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gabor Maté on the misuse of anti-Semitism and why fewer Jews identify with Israel​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Palestinians, Jordanians Fume Over Court Ruling Allowing Jews to Pray at Temple Mount | United with Israel
					

The Jordanian Islamic endowment that maintains Al-Aqsa called the ruling a 'flagrant violation' of the compound's sanctity and a 'clear provocation' for Muslims worldwide.




					unitedwithisrael.org
				




  Palestinians are " outraged" over Israeli " Apartheid?" and not being treated " equally?" I'm glad!   For any Pro Palestinian poster, please tell us why Jews should not be allowed to pray at that site.  There will be no response
     He prayed QUIETLY and the Palestinians still objected?  One more reason why they will never give up E. Jerusalem


----------



## P F Tinmore

Politics in the U.S. and Palestine with Rashida Tlaib, Diana Buttu. Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi and Dr. Loubna Qutami​
Starts @ 9:45


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza, and Historic Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Retaliation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

P F Tinmore 

OLD NEWSStrikes - Counter-Strikes → What is new?






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*PA security works for Israel.*

Palestinian Grassroots Protests & Violent Repression by the Palestinian Authority​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Trump, Palestine, and the False Premise of "Economic Peace"​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Multi-level Logic Question of Peace
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  These two outbursts are related in the same fallacy.



P F Tinmore said:


> *PA security works for Israel.*
> 
> Palestinian Grassroots Protests & Violent Repression by the Palestinian Authority​


*(COMMENT)*

These are people that are advocating violence in the toxic belief that it is not a violation of *International Humanitarian Law* AND the *Civil and Political Rights* of the Arab Palestinian people.

Like many of their kind, that has been falsely convinced, they have some right to engage in deadly violence.  There is *nothing that can justify the terrorism* employed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP).  This is particularly true in the case of events much like the murder of Border Police Officer, Staff Sergeant Bar-el Shmueli, gunned down by a Palestinian Gunman.



P F Tinmore said:


> Trump, Palestine, and the False Premise of "Economic Peace"


*(COMMENT)*

While this is old news, these advocates have been proven wrong in the short term.  There is no argument that the recent Economic Agreement is not the end-all and be-all to Arab-Israeli peace.   But it is a good first step; except in regard to Arab Palestinians.  The political aggravation from the inside is like cancer that is slowly eating up the Arab Palestinians.  

Like so many extremists and divergent people, little _(if anything)_ in the way of external solutions will change anything or affect thinking.  They simply are beyond the point in which the general population of Arab Palestinians can induce change that will correct a government that can provide even the most basic services.  The vast majority of the Arab Palestinians in the general population are not much better than sheep.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Trump, Palestine, and the False Premise of "Economic Peace"​


What peace?





__





						Hamas Charter
					

Hamas' targeting of Jewish civilians ispart and parcel of its mission — as set out in its governing Covenant or Charter — to 'fight




					www.camera.org
				




Link?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> *PA security works for Israel.*
> 
> Palestinian Grassroots Protests & Violent Repression by the Palestinian Authority​


YAWN.....
Hamas accepts 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, top official says - Haaretz Com - Haaretz.com

Speaking to Palestinian news agency Ma'an, Mahmoud Zahar says recognition of Israel would deprive future Palestinian generations of the possibility to 'liberate' their lands.

Ask Tinmore why Israel would even consider changing their policy towards the Palestinians and there will be no response


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> These are people that are advocating violence in the toxic belief that it is not a violation of *International Humanitarian Law* AND the *Civil and Political Rights* of the Arab Palestinian people.


Where did you get that?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Multi-level Logic Question of Peace
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  I seem to, quite frequently, wind up with this ambiguous response from you.

Are you asking about where I derived they are advocating for violence?
Are you asking about where I derived the action was in violation of the law?



> RoccoR said:
> 
> These are people that are advocating violence in the toxic belief that it is not a violation of *International Humanitarian Law* AND the *Civil and Political Rights* of the Arab Palestinian people.





P F Tinmore said:


> Where did you get that?


*(COMMENT)*

Since I already provided the links for the Customary and International Humanitarian Law and the Convention on Civil and Political Rights which are violated almost on a daily basis, I guess you are arguing that the continuous advocation of "Armed Struggle" by the Hostile Arab Palestinians is at issue.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Multi-level Logic Question of Peace
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  I seem to, quite frequently, wind up with this ambiguous response from you.
> 
> Are you asking about where I derived they are advocating for violence?
> Are you asking about where I derived the action was in violation of the law?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Since I already provided the links for the Customary and International Humanitarian Law and the Convention on Civil and Political Rights which are violated almost on a daily basis, I guess you are arguing that the continuous advocation of "Armed Struggle" by the Hostile Arab Palestinians is at issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Palestinians have the legal right to resist colonization.

Israel constantly violates the law yet expects Palestinian resistance to be pristine.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: What are the Arab Palestinians using to determine the "legal right."



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians have the legal right to resist colonization.
> 
> Israel constantly violates the law yet expects Palestinian resistance to be pristine.


*(COMMENT)*

I have given citations to the law?

 Why don't you tell me what law grants the Arab Palestinians the authority to trample over the Customary and International Humanitarian Law?

Why don't you tell me what law grants the Arab Palestinians the authority to trample over the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights?

Why do you characterize the conflict as a "resistance to colonization" when the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) AGREED that the Israelis would have full civil and security control in Area C.

What has the Israelis done that the Hostile Arab Palestinians did not agree to in the public forum:
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP ANNEX III  Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs​ARTICLE IV - Special Provisions concerning Area C​APPENDIX 1 Powers and Responsibilities for Civil Affairs​
When the HoAP agreed to the authority over ARTICLE 27 Planning and Zoning, what objection did the HoAP take to the Conflict Resolution provisions that they claim Israel violated?

Basic TO  Declaration of Principles.
CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS
ARTICLE XVII
Jurisdiction

In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and
powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.  These are the basic provisions that the HoAP failed to comply with.  And I suspect they have not used the Permanent Status of Negotiations process because they know damn well it would highlight their policy of armed struggle (not negotiation) as the solution.

It is people like yourself that pass this fabricated information about some non-existent right to Armed Struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine.   That is the principal reason they have lost control of so much territory they have been unable to craft into a nation.  Even with all the donor dollars that has been pumped into the territory, the HoAP and Government have been unable to provide any of the basic services normally associated with a national government.

Where's the beef?





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is people like yourself that pass this fabricated information about some non-existent right to Armed Struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine.


There is at least one UN resolution (I forget the number.) that specifically states that the Palestinians have the right to armed struggle.

Armed struggle is a very small part of Palestine's activities seeking liberation.

You post a lot of laws only assuming that the Palestinians violate them. I believe you are incorrect.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: There is no "international law" or binding resolution that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinians from the compliance requirements of the _I*nternational Humanitarian Law*_ AND the _*Civil and Political Rights*._


P F Tinmore said:


> Armed struggle is a very small part of Palestine's activities seeking liberation.


*(COMMENT)*
.
My Database shows (at least) five resolutions.  However, none of the five were binding and none of them had the power or authority of law.  They cannot be used to override the _I*nternational Humanitarian Law*_ OR the _*Civil and Political Rights* by international convention._

*◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX).* 29 November 1974.  _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/33/24*  29 November 1978. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/34/44*. 23 November 1979. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/35/35*. 14 November 1980. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/36/9*. 28 October 1981. _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​
You should also notice that ALL FIVE predate a time before the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence (1988) and ALL FIVE predate the acceptance of the December 2012 Resolution (*A/RES/67/19*) which decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice.


P F Tinmore said:


> Armed struggle is a very small part of Palestine's activities seeking liberation.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​


P F Tinmore said:


> You post a lot of laws only assuming that the Palestinians violate them. I believe you are incorrect.


.*(COMMENT)*

Yes, you are right.  I post "LAWS."  One does not have to be a Rhodes Scholar to determine what these laws mean.  You may disagree.  But you don't have a single law in your favor.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians have the legal right to resist colonization.
> 
> Israel constantly violates the law yet expects Palestinian resistance to be pristine.


The Pallys have a charter which defines their goals of colonization. 


"pristine''? You stole that from a speech by the prayer leader at your madrassah, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: There is no "international law" or binding resolution that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinians from the compliance requirements of the _I*nternational Humanitarian Law*_ AND the _*Civil and Political Rights*._
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> My Database shows (at least) five resolutions.  However, none of the five were binding and none of them had the power or authority of law.  They cannot be used to override the _I*nternational Humanitarian Law*_ OR the _*Civil and Political Rights* by international convention._
> 
> *◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX).* 29 November 1974.  _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/33/24*  29 November 1978. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/34/44*. 23 November 1979. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/35/35*. 14 November 1980. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​*◈. A/RES/36/9*. 28 October 1981. _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​
> You should also notice that ALL FIVE predate a time before the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence (1988) and ALL FIVE predate the acceptance of the December 2012 Resolution (*A/RES/67/19*) which decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​
> .*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you are right.  I post "LAWS."  One does not have to be a Rhodes Scholar to determine what these laws mean.  You may disagree.  But you don't have a single law in your favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Everyone has the right to self defense. Everyone has the right to resist aggression.

Refute that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone has the right to self defense. Everyone has the right to resist aggression.
> 
> Refute that.


The Hamas Charter is ''self defense''?

Support that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The Hamas Charter is ''self defense''?
> 
> Support that.


Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.


Ahhh…. Still can’t refute it


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Ongoing Nakba: Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza, and Historic Palestine​



"Historic" Sheikh Jarrah?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.


It must be difficult when you can't find a youtube video to cut and paste. Absent that, wait for the current page to scroll past. It's either that or anothe of your silly one-liners.

The Hamas Charter is specifically about an ideological imperative to kill Jews and conquer Iand that an Arab warlord identified as ''waqf''. The near daily incitement from Fatah is specifically about killing Jews and conquering the ''enemy''. 

I'll be glad to supply links documenting the waves of Pally gee-had attacks against Israel. There are periods when the attacks surged and reached seemingly unbelievable depths of depravity. Suicide bombers sought out groups of women and children. Pally sociopaths, (heroes to the culture of mental defectives who encouraged them), invaded Jewish homes and murdered the household in their beds, including children. Ariel Sharon at one point disregarded any and all “international opinion” and ordered the Israeli Defense Forces into Ramallah, Jenin, and other enabling points of Pally terrorism. For a time, the attacks on Israeli citizens dwindled near to zero and calls for ''restraint'' faded as that what was needed to halt the gee-had attacks.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*PREFACE*:  You simply do not pay any attention.

*BLUF*:   Everyone has the right to self-defense.  There is no dispute over that issue.  The question revolves around Who is defending against whom?  Does this dispute have the components of:

◈. Being instant, ​◈. Being overwhelming, ​◈. Leaving no choice of means, ​◈. Having no moment for deliberation,​
Prior to the Six-Day War, there was a UN Peacekeeping Force that was ejected.  (Still a moment of deliberation.)
After the Six-Day War, The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967, was set in place.

◈.  No peace with Israel,​◈.  No recognition of Israel,​◈.  No negotiations,​
*SELF-DEFENSE: * 
(1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841 , arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: s*elf-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.* . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ); Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).

*(2)  Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter* provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g., Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflicts (2nd imp. rev.), 245. However, the International Court of Justice in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 95 made it clear that the right of self-defense under international law exists alongside the provision in art. 51 of the Charter: ‘it cannot be presumed that article 51 is a provision which “subsumes and supervenes” customary international law’.
*SOURCE:*  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • 3 ed, Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp549



P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone has the right to self defense. Everyone has the right to resist aggression.
> 
> Refute that.


.*(COMMENT)*
.
1.  The State of Israel never attacked any authority known as Palestine, as defined by: 
ARTICLE 1 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​​a ) a permanent population;​b ) a defined territory;​c ) government; and​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​​​​2.  The Six-Day War (June 1967) was a conflict between the forces of Israel and the forces of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  It was NOT a conflict with the Arab Palestinians.  
​3.  The disputes over the territories known as the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were resolved by Peace Treaties between Israel and the States of Jordan and Egypt.
​◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​​◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •​​*( ∑ )*
​These are but just a few reasons as to why the Claim of Self-Defense by the Arab Palestinians is unfounded.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, since the 1949 Armistice Agreements, a time when the Arab Palestinians were denied the opportunity to some non-violent form of conflict resolution.  There has been, continuously, a forum of one sort or another that offered the Arab Palestinian consideration through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their choice.

When the Arab Palestinians refuse such measures, THEN there is no instance in which "self-defense" is a legitimate claim as a means to prolong a conflict.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→  _et al,_








_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Everyone has the right to self-defense. There is no dispute over that issue. The question revolves around Who is defending against whom? Does this dispute have the components of:
> 
> ◈. Being instant, ◈. Being overwhelming, ◈. Leaving no choice of means, ◈. Having no moment for deliberation,


Indeed, I am correct.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

I can understand why it is important for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to completely ignore this component of "self-defense" but it really makes a difference



			
				RoccoR Excerpt said:
			
		

> BLUF: Everyone has the right to self-defense. There is no dispute over that issue. The question revolves around Who is defending against whom? Does this dispute have the components of:





			
				RoccoR Excerpt said:
			
		

> ◈. Being instant, ​◈. Being overwhelming, ​◈. Leaving no choice of means, ​◈. Having no moment for deliberation,​





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, I am correct.


*(COMMENT)*

Each time the HoAP launch a discretionary attack without first where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is *instant,* *overwhelming*, *and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation*, THEN it is NOT an attack in self-defense.  When all the HoAP needs to do is stop its attacks to achieve an end to the conflict, but continues hostile acts, those acts are not taken in self-defense.

Remember!  The Israelis did not take any territory that was sovereign under an Arab Palestinian authority.  Israel did not take any territory in the West Bank or Jerusalem that was not abandon by the Jordanians and left in the hands of the Israelis.  At the conclusion of the conflict between Israel and Jordan, resolved by Treaty, a new international border was set between Israel and Jordan.

The Israelis never opened hostilities against Arab Palestinians.  Israel was not under an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.  The international boundary between Jordan and Israel was set by the Treaty that dissolved the Armistice Agreement.
.

.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I can understand why it is important for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to completely ignore this component of "self-defense" but it really makes a difference
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each time the HoAP launch a discretionary attack without first where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is *instant,* *overwhelming*, *and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation*, THEN it is NOT an attack in self-defense.  When all the HoAP needs to do is stop its attacks to achieve an end to the conflict, but continues hostile acts, those acts are not taken in self-defense.
> 
> Remember!  The Israelis did not take any territory that was sovereign under an Arab Palestinian authority.  Israel did not take any territory in the West Bank or Jerusalem that was not abandon by the Jordanians and left in the hands of the Israelis.  At the conclusion of the conflict between Israel and Jordan, resolved by Treaty, a new international border was set between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> The Israelis never opened hostilities against Arab Palestinians.  Israel was not under an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.  The international boundary between Jordan and Israel was set by the Treaty that dissolved the Armistice Agreement.
> .
> View attachment 550341
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You always miss this part. A hundred years ago the Zionists went to Palestine to attack the Palestinians. Those attacks continue to today.

The Palestinians are still fighting this aggression, i.e. self defense.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You always miss this part. A hundred years ago the Zionists went to Palestine to attack the Palestinians. Those attacks continue to today.
> 
> The Palestinians are still fighting this aggression, i.e. self defense.


Indeed. Your false premise that, "A hundred years ago the Zionists went to Palestine to attack the Palestinians", is unsupported. Indeed, another hysterical claim that allows you to justify islamic terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  A century ago, the Principle Allied Powers met in San Remo, Italy (April 1920).  And these powers decided to recognize the historical connection and interest the Jewish People concerning Palestine.  It was then that the Principle Allied Powers accepted the idea for reconstituting the Jewish National Home.  *It was the Principle Allied Powers that **decided** to facilitate and encourage Jewish immigration.  *There was no Zionist attack on the Arab Palestinian people.


P F Tinmore said:


> You always miss this part. A hundred years ago the Zionists went to Palestine to attack the Palestinians. Those attacks continue to today.
> 
> The Palestinians are still fighting this aggression, i.e. self defense.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Trying to go back in time a hundred years and applied today's political logic, laws agreement and rights to decisions made then, is simply ridiculous.  Trying to go back even half a century and understand why certain political, diplomatic and military decisions were made is difficult enough.

There was no Act of Aggression on the part of the Zionists.  

A hundred years ago, the Arab Palestinians were on the side of the defeated Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic which  renounced all rights and title over the territories in question which were not otherwise disposed. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic agreed to accept the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties of the Allied Powers. * In 1920, the territory in question transitioned out of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) in favor of a Civil Administration by the British (CAB)*.  It was not • nor was it eve • Arab Palestinian sovereign territory.  The Civil Administration of the territory was a "*legal entity*."  

So even if their was an Act of Aggression [*undefined until **A/RES/29/3314** (1974)*] a century ago, it could not have been an Act of Aggression against the Arab Palestinian; but rather opposing the British as the Mandatory selected by the Principle Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians would either have been under the OETA or the CAB.  




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  A century ago, the Principle Allied Powers met in San Remo, Italy (April 1920).  And these powers decided to recognize the historical connection and interest the Jewish People concerning Palestine.  It was then that the Principle Allied Powers accepted the idea for reconstituting the Jewish National Home.  *It was the Principle Allied Powers that **decided** to facilitate and encourage Jewish immigration.  *There was no Zionist attack on the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Trying to go back in time a hundred years and applied today's political logic, laws agreement and rights to decisions made then, is simply ridiculous.  Trying to go back even half a century and understand why certain political, diplomatic and military decisions were made is difficult enough.
> 
> There was no Act of Aggression on the part of the Zionists.
> 
> A hundred years ago, the Arab Palestinians were on the side of the defeated Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic which  renounced all rights and title over the territories in question which were not otherwise disposed. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic agreed to accept the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties of the Allied Powers. * In 1920, the territory in question transitioned out of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) in favor of a Civil Administration by the British (CAB)*.  It was not • nor was it eve • Arab Palestinian sovereign territory.  The Civil Administration of the territory was a "*legal entity*."
> 
> So even if their was an Act of Aggression [*undefined until **A/RES/29/3314** (1974)*] a century ago, it could not have been an Act of Aggression against the Arab Palestinian; but rather opposing the British as the Mandatory selected by the Principle Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians would either have been under the OETA or the CAB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Doesn't change what I posted one bit.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> You always miss this part. A hundred years ago the Zionists went to Palestine to attack the Palestinians. Those attacks continue to today.
> 
> The Palestinians are still fighting this aggression, i.e. self defense.



Self defense, really?

*Not a single Zionist ever shot a bullet,
before Arab pogroms against the local Jewish community.*

Arab - Muslim supremacists have no one to blame but themselves, both for
initiating the Zionist response, and getting humiliated by a bunch of former dhimmis.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Not a single Zionist ever shot a bullet,
> before Arab pogroms against the local Jewish community.


That was what the British military occupation, with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket, was for.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Using Humor to Create World Change w/ Maysoon Zayid​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rashida Tlaib Condemns Biden Admin’s Attempt to Shield Israel From ICC Investigation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Miko Peled - The Keys to Peace in Palestine/Israel​
​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

NYU DC Discussion: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict--How can it be solved?​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That was what the British military occupation, with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket, was for.



The same 'British military occupation',
which was imposed in collaboration with Arab armies?

Indeed Arab - Muslim supremacists always sought military occupation in all Middle East.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Legally Radical? The Role of Law in Emancipatory Struggles with Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A Conversation With Angela Davis and Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Pushback: Bernie, Hulk & The Hadids​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Under Attack w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel / Palestine: It's SETTLER COLONIALISM, Stupid​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Teaching Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Misinformation and Trustworthiness of Palestinian Complainers
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP • ANNEX III  Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs
ARTICLE IV - Special Provisions concerning Area C

*Article 27* - Planning and Zoning 
In Area C, powers and responsibilities related to the sphere of Planning and Zoning will be transferred gradually to Palestinian jurisdiction that will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory *except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations*, during the further redeployment phases, to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council. ​​



​​

*The Palestinian side shall ensure that no construction close to the Settlements and military locations will harm, damage or adversely affect them or the infrastructure serving them. *
Accordingly, when the Palestinian side considers that a proposed Planning Scheme pertains to construction which may fall within subparagraph a. above (in particular: waste disposal sites; electric power stations and projects regarding sewage, hazardous materials or which may have a polluting impact), it shall provide the CAC with a copy of such a Planning Scheme prior to its entry into force.
 A sub-committee established by the CAC shall, upon request by the Israeli side, discuss such Planning Scheme. Pending the decision of the committee, planning procedures shall not be concluded and no building activity shall be carried out pursuant to the said Planning Scheme.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel / Palestine: It's SETTLER COLONIALISM, Stupid​


*(COMMENT)*

From my perspective, the Israelis are NOT exercising any authority that the Arab Palestinians did not agree to in the Treaty.

Now,* IF* the Aarab Palestinians are saying that their word is NOT valid in accordance with the treaty, *THEN* they are NOT a "STATE." *Why?**(RHETORICAL)*.  Because a "State" must have the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." _ (Article 1,  Convention on Rights and Duties of States)_

In that case, the Arab Palestinians cannot exercise "state-like" powers.  And this is the paradox of the Arab Palestinians.  

*IF* they claim the PLO did not have the authority to make that agreement,​*THEN* they are NOT a state.​​*IF* they claim to be a "state,"​*THEN* they must also recognize the authority they granted to the Israelis.​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> From my perspective, the Israelis are NOT exercising any authority that the Arab Palestinians did not agree to in the Treaty.


No treaty or agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people shall be valid if it violates the rights of the occupied people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In that case, the Arab Palestinians cannot exercise "state-like" powers. And this is the paradox of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *IF* they claim the PLO did not have the authority to make that agreement,*THEN* they are NOT a state.*IF* they claim to be a "state,"*THEN* they must also recognize the authority they granted to the Israelis.


What if all of Palestine is occupied as part of a settler colonial project?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Misinformation and Trustworthiness of Palestinian Complainers
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> No treaty or agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people shall be valid if it violates the rights of the occupied people.


*(COMMENT)*

So_!_  What you are telling us is that the Oslo Accords, for which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (_in fact the only one listed by states to Palestine • was that one awarded to Yasser Arafat, 1994, for the Oslo Accords_) was invalid and that the Nobel Prize should be stricken from the record.  

Prize motivation: "*for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East*."​Copyright © The Norwegian Nobel Institute​Arafat "approved the meeting of Palestinian negotiators with Israelis at secret negotiations in Oslo."​
I agree, that the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."

This is yet just another indicator of how the Arab Palestinian mentality addresses "peace."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What if all of Palestine is occupied as part of a settler colonial project?


It's not. 

So there goes another waste of bandwidth.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Misinformation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> What if all of Palestine is occupied as part of a settler colonial project?


*(COMMENT)*
.  This is a question that presupposes that Israel has a "Colonial Project."

   The pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) use terms like "colonial Project,"  "apartheid," and "occupation" as a means to incite violence and as a cause to assault the individual state's authority to regulate immigration and naturalization.  The HoAP maintains a continual or uninterrupted posture to foster political unrest and to provoke, encourage, and amplify hate speech, along with the intensification of threats and breaches of the peace, as well as acts of aggression.  And while the outward appearance may be to rally the justification for the    black attitude towards the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (C•&•IHL) and the twisting of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), the real intent is to exploit donor contributions to enhance *wealth, power and influence such that the leadership can live in the ever-ascending lifestyle to which they have become accustomed*.

Gaza’s Millionaires and Billionaires — How Hamas’s Leaders Got Rich Quick​*Report: Hamas Has Become Rich Through Massive Taxation of Beleaguered Gaza Population*​*Hamas got rich as Gaza was plunged into poverty*​.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This is a question that presupposes that Israel has a "Colonial Project."


Indeed it is.

You are a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Misinformation and Trustworthiness of Palestinian Complainers
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So_!_  What you are telling us is that the Oslo Accords, for which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (_in fact the only one listed by states to Palestine • was that one awarded to Yasser Arafat, 1994, for the Oslo Accords_) was invalid and that the Nobel Prize should be stricken from the record.
> 
> Prize motivation: "*for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East*."​Copyright © The Norwegian Nobel Institute​Arafat "approved the meeting of Palestinian negotiators with Israelis at secret negotiations in Oslo."​
> I agree, that the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."
> 
> This is yet just another indicator of how the Arab Palestinian mentality addresses "peace."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (_in fact the only one listed by states to Palestine • was that one awarded to Yasser Arafat, 1994, for the Oslo Accords_)


So did Rabin as the IDF was breaking the bones of protesters.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Plight of The Palestinian Refugee With Dr. Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

The history of the Palestinian Authority and other collaborators with Joseph Massad | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The myth of Israel's self-defense and media coverage of Palestine with Greg Shupak | EI Podcast​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Miko Peled - The Keys to Peace in Palestine/Israel​
> ​








						Why Palestinians Cannot Make Peace with Israel
					

Americans and Europeans fail to acknowledge that in order to achieve peace, the leaders must prepare their people for compromise and tolerance. If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people that the Western Wall has no religious




					www.gatestoneinstitute.org


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Rashida Tlaib Condemns Biden Admin’s Attempt to Shield Israel From ICC Investigation​



  Apparently they found that Israeli response was in response to Rockets being shot at them


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Apparently they found that Israeli response was in response to Rockets being shot at them


As usual, no reply


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Why Palestinians Cannot Make Peace with Israel
> 
> 
> Americans and Europeans fail to acknowledge that in order to achieve peace, the leaders must prepare their people for compromise and tolerance. If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people that the Western Wall has no religious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gatestoneinstitute.org


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people every now and then that the Western Wall has no religious significance to Jews and is, in fact, holy Muslim property.

Just ONE small example.  Please tell us why it's in Israel's interest to eventually be a minority with no access to their religious sites






__





						Dome of the Rock - New World Encyclopedia
					






					www.newworldencyclopedia.org
				




Please tell us why the Palestinians rioted


----------



## P F Tinmore

Fighting Islamophobia and Education Apartheid: Lamis Deek and Fahd Ahmed & Chicago Teachers​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


>


Can you imagine if there was “ Right of Return? “   Lol


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Deep Dive Live – Gaza: Open-Air Prison?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Incarcerating Palestine in Life and Death with Randa Wahbe - Rethinking Palestine
					

Randa Wahbe joins host Yara Hawari to discuss Palestinian political prisoners in the wake of the Gilboa prison break, and explain how Israel’s military prison system serves as a key pillar of the regime’s settler-colonial project.




					rethinkingpalestine.buzzsprout.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Pro-Palestinian support growing, but will it lead to policy change?  | The Stream​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How I Became an anti-Zionist Jew​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> How I Became an anti-Zionist Jew​


YAWN…  How I decided that Israel didn’t have the right to exist . Same post over and over again. Just different characters


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> How I Became an anti-Zionist Jew​



The 5% argument only makes sense if one holds the believe,
that minorities deserve rights according to public opinion.

If say Russia took over the US,
declaring support for a Cherokee state,
why should the majority argument count?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When all the HoAP needs to do is stop its attacks to achieve an end to the conflict,


Not true. Israeli violence continues ceasefire or not.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. Israeli violence continues ceasefire or not.


That's may be your excuse, a convenient slogan,
but don't call that truth when you only duck the very argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> That's may be your excuse,
> but don't call that truth.


You need to read the news.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to read the news.



I can find 'news' that say earth is flat.
See, you talk of 'truth' but have no argument..


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


I couldn’t stop laughing. The Palestinians complained because they concerned they wouldn’t have access to THEIR Holy Sites????
  However you see NOTHING wrong with Jews not having access. When two or more parties make a “ partnership, treaty,etc.etc. It’s understood that BOTH parties have to get some benefit from it
    Please tell us why Israel would deliberately put themselves in a worse position then they were in 1967.  There will not be a response


----------



## P F Tinmore

Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo with Zaha Hassan & Daniel Levy​


----------



## rylah

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> I couldn’t stop laughing. The Palestinians complained because they concerned they wouldn’t have access to THEIR Holy Sites????
> However you see NOTHING wrong with Jews not having access. When two or more parties make a “ partnership, treaty,etc.etc. It’s understood that BOTH parties have to get some benefit from it
> Please tell us why Israel would deliberately put themselves in a worse position then they were in 1967.  There will not be a response



If he's afraid of discussion,
let's see if we can further agree.

These accusations continue anyway,
what say, at least leverage them in Israel's favor.
It is possible to construct an altar in less than an hour...what then?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Intensity, Level, and Duration of Violence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:   If anything, this is not born out by the facts.  The aftermath of the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip demonstrates that any attempt by the Israelis to set the conditions for a peaceful solution will not be reciprocated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).


P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. Israeli violence continues ceasefire or not.


*(COMMENT)*
Since the inception of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)ª *(and the various developing factions)* → the Intensity, Level, and Duration of Violent activities on the part of the HoAP has, if anything, expanded in the level of effort or extended the duration of the conflict.   


			
				EXCERPT • [/FONT]Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser said:
			
		

> "A test based solely on the functions of government exerted by the foreign forces should be rejected insofar as it was premised on a misinterpretation of *Article 6§3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.* In fact, *Article 42 of the Hague Regulations* and Article 6§3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were two distinct provisions pertaining to different specific materia. In any case, Article 6§3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to provide a criterion for assessing the beginning and end of occupation, but only to regulate the end or the extent of the Convention’s applicability on the basis that occupation would still continue. In this respect, it was asserted that one should not substitute a test based solely on the exercise of governmental functions for the test derived from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations,"
> *SOURCE*:  _Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory_ • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)​


No matter how you interpret the History of the conflict, the various factions of the post-PLO HoAP have NOT supported a peaceful period (*"In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations"*).  There has not been a one-year period of peace supported by the HoAP.  In fact, NO Palestinian FACTION has a policy that contradicts the PLO position that "*Armed struggle* is the only way to liberate Palestine."  In fact, the current policy of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) openly adopts the political position that:  "*There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors*."

The Israelis have taken extraordinary steps to prevent the unnecessary loss of uninvolved civilian casualties when responding to actual threats or use of force against the defense of the Israeli citizenry, Israeli territorial integrity, Israeli sovereignty, and the protection against HoAP activity which is solely intended to harm the Israeli Civil Administration of territory on the west side of the international boundary between Jordan and Israel.  Having said that, the HoAP is operating at the opposite end of the spectrum.  The HoAP has taken unprecedented measures to locate anti-Israeli strike activities and indirect fire launch sites within or close proximity of densely populated areas.

There is a large segment of the Arab Palestinian population that operates as if they are being denied some perceived notion relative to the "Right of Return" (RoR).  While they may think there is some* binding law* or *convention that has the power of international law*, when asked to provide the citation for the same, *they CAN NOT produce it*.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
ª _The Basic Law of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was issued in the first Palestinian conference which was held in Jerusalem between 28 May → June 1964._






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Intensity, Level, and Duration of Violence
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:   If anything, this is not born out by the facts.  The aftermath of the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip demonstrates that any attempt by the Israelis to set the conditions for a peaceful solution will not be reciprocated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> Since the inception of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)ª *(and the various developing factions)* → the Intensity, Level, and Duration of Violent activities on the part of the HoAP has, if anything, expanded in the level of effort or extended the duration of the conflict.
> 
> No matter how you interpret the History of the conflict, the various factions of the post-PLO HoAP have NOT supported a peaceful period (*"In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations"*).  There has not been a one-year period of peace supported by the HoAP.  In fact, NO Palestinian FACTION has a policy that contradicts the PLO position that "*Armed struggle* is the only way to liberate Palestine."  In fact, the current policy of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) openly adopts the political position that:  "*There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors*."
> 
> The Israelis have taken extraordinary steps to prevent the unnecessary loss of uninvolved civilian casualties when responding to actual threats or use of force against the defense of the Israeli citizenry, Israeli territorial integrity, Israeli sovereignty, and the protection against HoAP activity which is solely intended to harm the Israeli Civil Administration of territory on the west side of the international boundary between Jordan and Israel.  Having said that, the HoAP is operating at the opposite end of the spectrum.  The HoAP has taken unprecedented measures to locate anti-Israeli strike activities and indirect fire launch sites within or close proximity of densely populated areas.
> 
> There is a large segment of the Arab Palestinian population that operates as if they are being denied some perceived notion relative to the "Right of Return" (RoR).  While they may think there is some* binding law* or *convention that has the power of international law*, when asked to provide the citation for the same, *they CAN NOT produce it*.
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> ª _The Basic Law of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was issued in the first Palestinian conference which was held in Jerusalem between 28 May → June 1964._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state.  There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.



P F Tinmore said:


> All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.


.
*(COMMENT)*

The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine." 




 ​​*( ∑ )*
.
I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime.  The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.

When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel...  Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.

You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory.  The element of the offense:  "*the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State*,"

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
 ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.

*Crime of aggression
Introduction*

1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.​2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.​4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​
*Elements*

1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.​2. The perpetrator was a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of aggression.​3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.​4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.


Nonsense. 

The religious convictions for Jew killing date back to the time of the religion's inventor. 

The Hamas Charter is explicit about the ideological imperative for Jew killing.

Fatah has near daily Facebook posts vilifying Jews.

Yours is just more of the dishonest tactic of _taqiyya_.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.


I stand corrected. I should not have said Israel. I should have said Zionist colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state.  There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.
> 
> 
> .
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine."
> 
> 
> View attachment 554298 View attachment 554302
> 
> ​*( ∑ )*
> .
> I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime.  The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.
> 
> When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel...  Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.
> 
> You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory.  The element of the offense:  "*the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State*,"
> 
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
> As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.
> 
> *Crime of aggression
> Introduction*
> 
> 1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.​2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.​4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​
> *Elements*
> 
> 1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.​2. The perpetrator was a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of aggression.​3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.​4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That was what the British military occupation, with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket, was for.



The British occupation which was established with Arab forces?
Indeed that idiocy Arab supremacists have only themselves to blame.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> The British occupation which was established with Arab forces?
> Indeed that idiocy Arab supremacists have only themselves to blame.


Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?


Apparently enough to establish the British occupation.
Then demanded the land ceded to an Arabian prince from Mecca.

As said earlier - for the humiliation they have no one to blame but themselves...


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Apparently enough to establish the British occupation.
> Then demanded the land ceded to an Arabian prince from Mecca.
> 
> As said earlier - Arabs have no one to blame for getting humiliated but their own idiocy...


What does that have to do with the Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Breaking Through the Bias – Confronting Anti-Palestinian Media Coverage with Dr Yara Hawari​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> What does that have to do with the Palestinians?



The greedy Arab supremacists who blame every one else
for the results of their degradation?

Demanding the entire Middle East,
but can't even name the places,
must be depressing to fail at...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.


The Pallys never held any sovereign territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?


False premise. 

What occupation?

What sovereign territory held by Pally terrorists is occupied?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The Pallys never held any sovereign territory.


Who told you that?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Who told you that?
> 
> Link?


Why did you falsely represent the Pally squatters held sovereign territory?

What territory would that be?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Why did you falsely represent the Pally squatters held sovereign territory?
> 
> What territory would that be?
> 
> Link?


Posted many times. You need to keep up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

In the Midst of Destruction – From Jerusalem to Gaza: Palestine Speaks​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Posted many times. You need to keep up.


Another of the slogans you cut and paste because you can't support your claims. 

What sovereign territory was held by the Pally squatters?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: This statement is TRUE only from the perspective that the "Palestinians" never ceded territory or sovereignty because they never had any territorial sovereignty to give up.



P F Tinmore said:


> You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The territory went from being under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic → to → enemy-occupied territory (1917) → to → becoming a territory under international civil administration (1920 actual)(1924 formal).  


			
				Section I • Territory Clauses • Treaty of Lausanne said:
			
		

> *ARTICLE 16*.
> Turkey hereby* renounces all rights and title *whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned*.​​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​SOURCE:  *HRI Project*​​



◈  In 1945, the international civil administration transitioned from the League of Nations Mandate System to the UN International Trustee System (Article 77) of the *UN Charter*.​​◈  In 1948 The State of Israel was declared under the right of self-determination by the National Council for the Jewish State; in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).  Simultaneously, the Arab League launched a military assault to prevent the creation of the new state.  ​​◈  In 1949, a series of Armistice Agreements were established between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States.​​◈  In 1950, the Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem.​​◈  In 1967, in response to the threat and subsequent use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were seized.​
At no time, between 1948 and 2012 - Palestine was NOT identified as a State or a country.  Nor was could a government be identified and associated with Palestine.  Pursuant to *UN A/RES/43/177* (1998) the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO).  [*UN Memorandum from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, dtd 11 December 2012, Subject:  Issues related to Resolution 67/19 on the status of Palestine*] • (See *A/RES/67/19*)

This entire notion that the Zionist or Jewish People, or Israel, etc etc etc, somehow deprived the Arab Palestinians of their territory or sovereignty is without merit and at best a disreputable practice in a commentary by the Hostile Arab Palestinian contingent bent on the continuation of the conflict for the various nefarious reason (_including fraud in bilking donor nations out of funding_).  But in a more general sense, it is the dissemination of false information that is spread deliberately to deceive the readership → even when presented with documented facts placed officially as a matter of record.

Finally, the determination made to present the territorial administration of Palestine to the British Government, and the responsibility to assist the Jewish People in reconstituting the Jewish National Home was made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers over a century ago.  It was at the direction of the Allied Powers that: 

◈  The Mandate Government development of self-governing institutions.​​◈  The Jewish Agency, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, was to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.​​◈  The Mandate Government facilitates Jewish immigration.​​◈  Facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews.​
The notion that there was some invisible hand of the Jewish People that was manipulating these activities is simply a ploy by the Arab Palestinian to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, to instigate a breach of the peace, or further anti-Jewish notions to weaken their resolve.  But in the 100 years since these monumental decisions were made by the Allied Powers, an endless series of poor decisions on the part of Arab Palestinian leaders has strengthened Israeli determination and not the reverse.

It is a disservice to the Arab Palestinians and paints them as an undisciplined criminal activity when they openly advocacy for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence against Israel.

Just my thoughts,





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​



Anything yet on sovereign territory held by the Pallys?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

I will preemptively (and graciously),  post P F Tinmore's response to the above:


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Can We Achieve Liberation For All?​Jeremy Corbyn and Dr. Yara Hawari


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> How Can We Achieve Liberation For All?​Jeremy Corbyn and Dr. Yara Hawari



Anything yet on sovereign territory held by the Pallys?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Anything yet on sovereign territory held by the Pallys?
> 
> Link?


Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Who prevents them from returning to Saudia and Egypt?

They choose Vodka in the Great Satan...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924.



Entitled to re-constitute who's national sovereignty, has that changed?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Re-framing the Narrative for Palestinian Rights and Justice​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924.


Your retreating to your silly conspiracy theory about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the ''country of Pal'istan'' and some imagined ''new states''.

1. Provide the *exact citation* in the Treaty of Lausanne where the ''country of Pal'istan'' is invented.

2. Identify the ''new states'' invented.

3. Identify any sovereign territory held by the Pally's.

4. Your usual tactics of denial, deflection and embarrassing gaffes are a decade old now.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:   The first is a case of disinformation (deception).   The second case is an attempt at changing the question from what it was when the original decisions were made by the Allied Powers, through to a time in which the Treaties between Israel and the Arab nations of Egypt and Jordan were adopted.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The deception here is a Case of the Country that was not there. 
​
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a Palestinian who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

An adaptation of a Poem by; 
....................._Hughes Mearns_​
Although the phrase "Palestine's international borders" are in standard English and no interpretation is required, the word "Palestine" was not a country between 1917 and 1948.  *It was a legal entity*.
The name "Palestine," between 1998 and 2012, was the *designation used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization"* (PLO).

Even the simplest of questions (who is a Palestinian) becomes complicated because the status of Palestine was not a country until A/RES/67/19 (Status of Palestine) when:
​


			
				UN General Assembly said:
			
		

> 1.  Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;​​2.  Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​SOURCE:  *A/RES/67/19*​​


​The  Palestinian People did not exercise any self-determination at any time between 1967 and 2012.

Today, the only place where the Arab Palestinians can claim "sovereignty" is the Gaza Strip since 2005 (by default on the Israeli unilateral withdrawal) and Area "A" of the West Bank (by agreement of the PLO in the Oslo Accords → sole representative of the Palestinian People).

◈  Area "A" is a Dictatorship under PLO (Fatah) Control.  ​​◈  The Gaza Strip is a Dictatorship under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).​


P F Tinmore said:


> Re-framing the Narrative for Palestinian Rights and Justice​


*(COMMENT)*
.
This is necessary because the _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR) does not actually present international law in their favor.  The CCPR only went into force in March 1976.  

◈  The CCPR was not in force during the Six-Day War.​​◈  There was *no Palestinian Government in 1988* when (by default) the control of the West Bank and Jerusalem fell into Israeli hands.​
This "re-framing" or replacing the framework, is a sleight of hand.  Again, this is to entertain the activities of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, pro-Arab Palestinian associates, and the anti-Israel advocates.  But it is like me reducing the Speed Limit on your street *today *and then claiming you were speeding *yesterday.  *Or, changing the graduation criterion* today *for a degree you earned* years ago, *and then recalling your degree*.  *Re-framing the narrative is a desperate measure for holding a losing position.
.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:   The first is a case of disinformation (deception).   The second case is an attempt at changing the question from what it was when the original decisions were made by the Allied Powers, through to a time in which the Treaties between Israel and the Arab nations of Egypt and Jordan were adopted.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The deception here is a Case of the Country that was not there.
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday, upon the stair,
> I met a Palestinian who wasn't there
> He wasn't there again today
> I wish, I wish he'd go away...
> 
> An adaptation of a Poem by;
> ....................._Hughes Mearns_​
> Although the phrase "Palestine's international borders" are in standard English and no interpretation is required, the word "Palestine" was not a country between 1917 and 1948.  *It was a legal entity*.
> The name "Palestine," between 1998 and 2012, was the *designation used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization"* (PLO).
> 
> Even the simplest of questions (who is a Palestinian) becomes complicated because the status of Palestine was not a country until A/RES/67/19 (Status of Palestine) when:
> ​​The  Palestinian People did not exercise any self-determination at any time between 1967 and 2012.
> 
> Today, the only place where the Arab Palestinians can claim "sovereignty" is the Gaza Strip since 2005 (by default on the Israeli unilateral withdrawal) and Area "A" of the West Bank (by agreement of the PLO in the Oslo Accords → sole representative of the Palestinian People).
> 
> ◈  Area "A" is a Dictatorship under PLO (Fatah) Control.  ​​◈  The Gaza Strip is a Dictatorship under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> This is necessary because the _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR) does not actually present international law in their favor.  The CCPR only went into force in March 1976.
> 
> ◈  The CCPR was not in force during the Six-Day War.​​◈  There was *no Palestinian Government in 1988* when (by default) the control of the West Bank and Jerusalem fell into Israeli hands.​
> This "re-framing" or replacing the framework, is a sleight of hand.  Again, this is to entertain the activities of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, pro-Arab Palestinian associates, and the anti-Israel advocates.  But it is like me reducing the Speed Limit on your street *today *and then claiming you were speeding *yesterday.  *Or, changing the graduation criterion* today *for a degree you earned* years ago, *and then recalling your degree*.  *Re-framing the narrative is a desperate measure for holding a losing position.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:



> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*



The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:



> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the *territory of Palestine* upon the 1st day of August, 1925, *shall become Palestinian citizens.”*



*Definition:* A legal entity is an individual or group that has legal rights and duties related to contracts, agreements, payments, transactions, obligations, penalties and sues. The term applies to any kind of organization formally constituted according to the particular set of laws governing the country.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924.


I thought the prior post was " Liberation for all?"  lol


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>











						The problem with ‘right of return’ | The Spectator Australia
					

The United Nations Global Compact on Migration has brought issues relating to migrants and refugees to the fore for many countries. In Australian, European and US politics – and also in Britain with…




					www.spectator.com.au
				




Poor Tinmore. This must be the first thing he thinks about in the morning and thr last thing before he goes to bed


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF:*  This is yet another example of the Reading Comprehension Problem - or - intentional deception.



P F Tinmore said:


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne is the legal foundation for the British to operate and grant citizenship to the Administrative Government of Palestine (actually all the Mandates).  It has nothing whatsoever to do with territorial disposition.



P F Tinmore said:


> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:


Ref:  *The 1925 Citizenship Order*...

Part III - Para 7. (1) The High Commissioner may grant a certificate of naturalisation as a Palestinian citizen to any person who makes application therefor and who satisfies him.

Part III - Para 7. (3) The granting of a certificate of naturalisation shall be in the absolute discretion of the High Commissioner, who may with or without assigning any reason give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good; and no appeal shall lie from his decision.

The Citizenship Order was not granting citizenship to a country, but to a legal entity (not independently governed by Palestinians).



P F Tinmore said:


> *Definition:*A legal entity is an individual or group that has legal rights and duties related to contracts, agreements, payments, transactions, obligations, penalties and sues. The term applies to any kind of organization formally constituted according to the particular set of laws governing the country.


*(COMMENT)*

Once again, this is Reading Comprehension Problem - or - Intentional Deception.

*LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”* • Memorandum "A" • 25 February 1948 • Excerpt

Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), *who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs*.​​After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity *but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing*. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​
I lean toward you trying to be deliberate deception.  

If you read the entire definition you present, you will notice that it says:  "*according to the particular set of laws governing the country.*"

The British Government bent over backward trying to make it clear that there was no sovereign state of Palestine.  They could not possibly have made is more clear.  This Memorandum was released to the media in its entirety.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition:* A legal entity is an individual or group that has legal rights and duties related to contracts, agreements, payments, transactions, obligations, penalties and sues. The term applies to any kind of organization formally constituted according to the particular set of laws governing the country.





P F Tinmore said:


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition:* A legal entity is an individual or group that has legal rights and duties related to contracts, agreements, payments, transactions, obligations, penalties and sues. The term applies to any kind of organization formally constituted according to the particular set of laws governing the country.


The above is the same collection of snippets you have cut and pasted for a decade now, not understanding what you cut and paste.

Let's try again, shall we?

1. Provide the exact citation in the Treaty of Lausanne where the ''country of Pal'istan'' is invented.

2. Identify the ''new states'' invented.

3. Identify any sovereign territory held by the Pally's.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The British Government bent over backward trying to make it clear that there was no sovereign state of Palestine.


Does a foreign colonial power have the authority to make that decision? Remember that a Mandate had no land or sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Part III - Para 7. (1) The High Commissioner may grant a certificate of naturalisation as a Palestinian citizen to any person who makes application therefor and who satisfies him.


That only applied to settlers. All Palestinians got automatic citizenship.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The above is the same collection of snippets you have cut and pasted for a decade now, not understanding what you cut and paste.
> 
> Let's try again, shall we?
> 
> 1. Provide the exact citation in the Treaty of Lausanne where the ''country of Pal'istan'' is invented.
> 
> 2. Identify the ''new states'' invented.
> 
> 3. Identify any sovereign territory held by the Pally's.


That was highlighted in my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More name calling out of Israel.*

Israel Declares War on Palestinian Human Rights Defenders​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That was highlighted in my post.


No. It was not.

Identify the citation in the Treaty of Lausanne that invents your imagined “country of Pal’istan”. 

Quite strange that you make pointless claims you can’t support and then retreat to cutting and pasting YouTube


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> No. It was not.
> 
> Identify the citation in the Treaty of Lausanne that invents your imagined “country of Pal’istan”.
> 
> Quite strange that you make pointless claims you can’t support and then retreat to cutting and pasting YouTube


It is your pointless claim not mine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is your pointless claim not mine.


Your usual emotional outburst.

Why make pointless claims you can’t defend? You may believe the absurdities you post but when you’re unable to support those nonsense claims it makes you appear rather buffoonish.,

Nothing on that citation for the Treaty of Lausanne inventing your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

Nothing on those “new states”?

Gee whiz. A decade of pointless claims by cutting and pasting the same snippets of “quotes” that don’t support your claims.

A total hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Protests and the Future of the Palestinian Struggle​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  This is a Non-sensical question.  The Ottoman Empire was a foreign colonial Power in terms of the Middle East North African (MENA) Region for five centuries _(depending on the plot of land and the time frame)_.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Does a foreign colonial power have the authority to make that decision? Remember that a Mandate had no land or sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Foreign Powers and external forces exert their own authority; sometimes successfully and sometimes not.  Reality (the actual ground truth) expresses the issue of sovereignty and what entity maintains that sovereign control.

You keep bringing up this notion:  That the Mandate had no land or sovereignty.  Yes, that is true.  No one _(that I can tell)_ has suggested otherwise.  What is true _(and a matter of record)_ is that:

POINT ONE:​​


			
				Treaty of Laussane said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​​


​
POINT TWO:​At no time have the Arab Palestinians maintained exclusive jurisdiction under international law; except as referenced with Area "A" and the Gaza Strip.  In this regard, the basic interrogative _(on sovereignty)_ questions as to the exercise full and unchallengeable power over a given territory and all people within that territory, during a given duration and time period.ª​
Basically, I think you have a comprehension problem with the concept of sovereignty as it applies to a state _(which varies depending on the type of government)_.

​


			
				Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State.​*SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. ©2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc  pp563​​


​.
*₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*
ª Bodley “Weakening the principle of sovereignty in international law: The international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” 1993 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 419. MacCormick Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth (1999) 127 provides the following explanation of the term “sovereignty” by distinguishing between legal and political sovereignty: “[W]hereas a 'merely legal conception',
Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy/Stephen D. Krasner. © 1999 by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 08540







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian Protests and the Future of the Palestinian Struggle​


Nothing on that citation for the Treaty of Lausanne inventing your imagined “country of Pal’istan”?

Nothing on those “new states”?

Yst another failure on your part to support your specious claims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  This is a Non-sensical question.  The Ottoman Empire was a foreign colonial Power in terms of the Middle East North African (MENA) Region for five centuries _(depending on the plot of land and the time frame)_.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Foreign Powers and external forces exert their own authority; sometimes successfully and sometimes not.  Reality (the actual ground truth) expresses the issue of sovereignty and what entity maintains that sovereign control.
> 
> You keep bringing up this notion:  That the Mandate had no land or sovereignty.  Yes, that is true.  No one _(that I can tell)_ has suggested otherwise.  What is true _(and a matter of record)_ is that:
> 
> POINT ONE:​​​
> POINT TWO:​At no time have the Arab Palestinians maintained exclusive jurisdiction under international law; except as referenced with Area "A" and the Gaza Strip.  In this regard, the basic interrogative _(on sovereignty)_ questions as to the exercise full and unchallengeable power over a given territory and all people within that territory, during a given duration and time period.ª​
> Basically, I think you have a comprehension problem with the concept of sovereignty as it applies to a state _(which varies depending on the type of government)_.
> 
> ​​.
> *₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*
> ª Bodley “Weakening the principle of sovereignty in international law: The international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” 1993 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 419. MacCormick Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth (1999) 127 provides the following explanation of the term “sovereignty” by distinguishing between legal and political sovereignty: “[W]hereas a 'merely legal conception',
> Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy/Stephen D. Krasner. © 1999 by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You keep confusing military control with sovereignty. Who has the power to control V. who has the right to control.

Article 4​States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.





__





						Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law
					






					www.jus.uio.no
				



-------------------
1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

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

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;





__





						UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
					





					www.mideastweb.org


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*:   Clearly, you cannot form an argument in which the ground truth exhibits Arab Palestinians sovereignty beyond Area "A" and the Gaza Strip.  As stated previously:

Today, the only place where the Arab Palestinians can claim "sovereignty" is the Gaza Strip since 2005 (by default on the Israeli unilateral withdrawal) and Area "A" of the West Bank (by agreement of the PLO in the Oslo Accords → sole representative of the Palestinian People).​​◈ Area "A" is a Dictatorship under PLO (Fatah) Control.​​◈ The Gaza Strip is a Dictatorship under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).​


P F Tinmore said:


> You keep confusing military control with sovereignty. Who has the power to control V. who has the right to control.
> 
> Article 4​States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jus.uio.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------


*(COMMENT)*

Where is the Palestinian State?  Show me where it is bounded.

*IF* there is such a thing as the State of Palestine, *THEN* it is a *failed state*.



			
				EXCERPTS • Douglas Howland & Luise White said:
			
		

> *Territory*
> As several essays here point out, the contemporary international system is generally traced to the treaties of Westphalia in the 1640s. The ideal envisaged by that Westphalian model was to coordinate states and territories, making each state, whether monarchy, principality, or republic, the sole sovereign authority in the territory to which it lay claim. This territorialization of power attempted to normalize a system of mutually recognized sovereign territorial states; it became the standard that European states subsequently maintained as they expanded globally. The Westphalian model also imagined that the international system would maintain itself through a coordinated system of international law, treaties, and diplomatic exchanges.
> 
> The point in all of this, of course, is that international political practice today demands that a sovereign entity be located and bounded. Governments in exile are not sovereign. Indeterminate spaces like that occupied by the Palestinian Authority are not sovereign territories,
> 
> *SOURCE*:  _Sovereignty and the Study of States_ © 2009 by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, University Press
> John Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: The New International Relations (New York: Routledge, 1998); Robert H. Jackson, Quasi- States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Martha Nussbaum, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004); Thomas W. Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms (Oxford: Polity Press, 2002); Amartya Sen, Rationality and Freedom (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2002); David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (Oxford: Polity Press, 2004).





P F Tinmore said:


> 1. _Reaffirms_the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;​​(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mideastweb.org


.
*(COMMENT)*

First, General Assembly Resolutions are not binding requiring action by any state.  
Second, there is no demand here.  And no one actually contests this notion.  In fact, the State of Israel recognizes this notion, in that they have used it to create their state and national home.


			
				Positive and Negative RIGHTS said:
			
		

> Positive Rights​Since the concept of rights limits the actions of the government, the only way to circumvent them is by adding new rights that are allegedly superior to the others. The concept of Positive Rights was developed. These new rights differ from the old rights. Instead of involving freedom from interference from others, these new rights demand goods and services.
> 
> The "positive" in *positive rights* refers to the fact that to satisfy these rights, *other people must provide them*. They require action from others, instead of inaction. A "right" to health care is such a right. In order to fulfill it, a doctor must be enslaved. The doctor may be paid of course, but then others are required to pay the bill.
> 
> Positive rights are not compatible with real rights, or "negative rights". The positive rights requires actions on the part of others. *Negative rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want.* The two are incompatible. Positive rights are accepted at the expense of negative rights. They cannot coexist, since they are polar opposites.
> 
> *SOURCE*:  Copyright © 2001 by Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands



*( ∑ )*

What is it exactly, does the Arab Palestinian want?  They do not really know.  They do not speak with one voice.  But as long as "jihad" and "armed struggle" are considered part of the solution, and the Permanent Status of Negotiations is ignored, the less likely it is that the Arab Palestinian will come anywhere close to want they want _(even if they could decide)_.  
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *IF* there is such a thing as the State of Palestine, *THEN* it is a *failed state*.


It is an occupied state and has been since 1924.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You keep confusing military control with sovereignty. Who has the power to control V. who has the right to control.
> 
> Article 4​States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jus.uio.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mideastweb.org


The UN issues lots of opinions. 

Nothing in the UN opinion suggests your phony spam relative to the Treaty of Lausanne inventing a Pally state is supportable. 

Maybe cut and paste that Zebra thingy.... for the 412th time.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is an occupied state and has been since 1924.


Your ''treaty of Lausanne invented the state of Pally'land'' conspiracy theory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Island Connections: The Palestine 2021 Uprising and BDS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What’s Next for Israel? Ari Shavit, Peter Beinart, Abe Foxman and Dan Senor​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What’s Next for Israel? Ari Shavit, Peter Beinart, Abe Foxman and Dan Senor​


If, as you insist, the ''country of Pal'istan'', and various ''new states'' were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924, why is there still occasional talk of a two state solution with a new ''country of Pal'istan'' alongside the State of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> If, as you insist, the ''country of Pal'istan'', and various ''new states'' were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924, why is there still occasional talk of a two state solution with a new ''country of Pal'istan'' alongside the State of Israel?


The two state solution (solution to what I don't know) was a foreign imposed concept that is long dead.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The two state solution (solution to what I don't know) was a foreign imposed concept that is long dead.


If, as you insist, the ''country of Pal'istan'', and various ''new states'' were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924, why is there talk of a two-state solution when the “country of Pal’istan” already exists? Did no one forward links to dictator Abbas or the Emir of Sinwar’istan to advise that you have decreed existence of the “country of Pal’istan”?

Whatever became of those “ new states” you claim were also invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> If, as you insist, the ''country of Pal'istan'', and various ''new states'' were invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924, why is there talk of a two-state solution when the “country of Pal’istan” already exists? Did no one forward links to dictator Abbas or the Emir of Sinwar’istan to advise that you have decreed existence of the “country of Pal’istan”?
> 
> Whatever became of those “ new states” you claim were also invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



Couldn’t find a YouTube video to cut and paste, eh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish, Israeli, and...ANTI-ZIONIST? w/ Miko Peled​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The fact that it is the Jewish state is irrelevant. It could be Hindu for all I care.



Indeed,  whether Israel or India,
all you care about is Arab-Muslim supremacy.





__





						Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

Make ‘Em Laugh: Comedy and the Fight for Palestinian Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians, Israelis, 1948, & Now: Researching, Teaching, and Asserting the Reality of the Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Palestinian Nakba: What Happened in 1948 and Why It Still Matters​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.

Using "Terrorism" Charges to Target NGOs: Lessons from the Case of Mohamed Halabi​


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


>


Conviction in Israel's kangaroo court doesn't carry much weight.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Conviction in Israel's kangaroo court doesn't carry much weight.



Because you want to excuse murder of Israelis?
Or because your pocket is shorter funneling aid to a militant group?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Because you want to excuse murder of Israelis?
> Or because your pocket is shorter funneling aid to a militant group?


Israel does not have a court of justice. It has a court of occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Because you want to excuse murder of Israelis?
> Or because your pocket is shorter funneling aid to a militant group?


It is all part of Israel's bullshit terrorist campaign.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel does not have a court of justice. It has a court of occupation.





P F Tinmore said:


> It is all part of Israel's bullshit terrorist campaign.



Notice how desperately you try to dodge discussion and evade the questions.

Are you trying to justify the murder of Israelis,
with these big mouth statements?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Notice how desperately you try to dodge discussion and evade the questions.
> 
> Are you trying to justify the murder of Israelis,
> with these big mouth statements?


I am not evading. I am just telling it like it is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> I am not evading. I am just telling it like it is.


Israel plays the terrorist and antisemite cards by the case.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.
> 
> Using "Terrorism" Charges to Target NGOs: Lessons from the Case of Mohamed Halabi​



You're suggesting that NGO's run by Pally terrorists can't be held accountable?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel plays the terrorist and antisemite cards by the case.



Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> You're suggesting that NGO's run by Pally terrorists can't be held accountable?


So says Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Links?


Go to any Israeli propaganda site.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> So says Israel.


Links?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Go to any Israeli propaganda site.


Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇵🇸 What's behind the protests in the Gaza Strip? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Spotlight on Al Haq & Israel's Declaration of War Against Palestinian Human Rights Defenders​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> 🇵🇸 What's behind the protests in the Gaza Strip? | Inside Story​











						WATCH: ‘Jerusalem Will Return to Islam,’ Preaches PA Mufti | United with Israel
					

Israel 'will pass… Jerusalem will be liberated, return to Islam… The evil will pass,' PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein tells Palestinian TV viewers.




					unitedwithisrael.org
				




Tinmore can't stand it because Israel doesn't eventually want a Palestinian majority?  Too bad






__





						Anti-Jewish Violence in Pre-State Palestine/1929 Massacres
					

Attacks by Arabs against Jews in Israel pre-dates Israeli settlements, pre-dates Israel's so-called 'occupation,' and pre-dates the establishment of the State of Israel.On the80th




					www.camera.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Comedy and Palestine: A Talk with Comedian Amer Zahr


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Spotlight on Al Haq & Israel's Declaration of War Against Palestinian Human Rights Defenders​


I havent read of any such declaration of war.

Oh, sorry. The above is just another silly YouTube video with knucklehead flamers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Pogrom in Mufaqara and "fighting for our justice"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The International Law Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The International Law Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict​



Time to start kicking that dead Zebra, again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Justice for Some: Live with Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper​


I just love when Tinmore posts. He is always contradicting himself. When asked why Palestinians get apoplexy when Jews visit the Temple Mount or why they would FORBID Jews to pray at the Western Wall if they had control his answer was
  “ Give them a inch and they will take a Mile” yet here he has the CHUTZPAH to talk about “ One Democratic State?” Just shows how full of S..T he is


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Hey, Israel, Leave Those Kids Alone!" Live with Roger Waters​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> "Hey, Israel, Leave Those Kids Alone!" Live with Roger Waters​



When a chief BDS-hole
needs Israel to keep business afloat...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper​



Who says Pal-Arabs want 'one democratic state'?
They want it to become like any other Arab colony,
merely seeking exclusive domination over the entire Middle East.

That said,* One Democratic State* can actually mean *Parliamentary Monarchy*,

want to discuss that?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> "Hey, Israel, Leave Those Kids Alone!" Live with Roger Waters​


  Hey, Palestinians!
      Stop shooting Rockets into Israel !


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

rylah said:


> Who says Pal-Arabs want 'one democratic state'?
> They want it to become like any other Arab colony,
> merely seeking exclusive domination over the entire Middle East.
> 
> That said,* One Democratic State* can actually mean *Parliamentary Monarchy*,
> 
> want to discuss that?











						‘From the River to the Sea’: Hamas Explains What British Students Want | United with Israel
					

Those arguing that the Palestinian Authority has a different agenda from Hamas are wrong. The PA shares the same 'river to the sea' doctrine that British university students find so attractive.




					unitedwithisrael.org
				




 Tinmore just can't STAND the fact that Israel exists and " Right of Return" will never happen.  Not even the " International Community" is making that a issue


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ceasefire – What Ceasefire? On the Ground in Occupied East Jerusalem​


----------



## rylah

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> ‘From the River to the Sea’: Hamas Explains What British Students Want | United with Israel
> 
> 
> Those arguing that the Palestinian Authority has a different agenda from Hamas are wrong. The PA shares the same 'river to the sea' doctrine that British university students find so attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unitedwithisrael.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore just can't STAND the fact that Israel exists and " Right of Return" will never happen.  Not even the " International Community" is making that a issue



Yeah ok, I'm actually hoping to discuss
alternative topics to what we're used to.

In a Parliamentary Monarchy everything is possible.

Relieved of the  zero-sum power struggle overburdening
the representative body from directing the energy needed
for a constructive value-based discourse, then hypothetically
even Hamas can have a seat if they dared open political debate...

Now can You picture the diaspora becoming royal subjects?
And what about tens of millions of Anusim?

See, what they project as our problem,
at the end of the day is really theirs.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Ceasefire – What Ceasefire? On the Ground in Occupied East Jerusalem​


“ Occupied” E Jerusalem which was considered part of Jordan prior to 1967


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> “ Occupied” E Jerusalem which was considered part of Jordan prior to 1967


Forgot something; Wasn’t this was where Jews were FORBIDDEN to even enter prior to 1967?
 Just shows you how much SHIT Tinmore is full of


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More bullshit name calling out of Israel.*

"Secret Israeli dossier provides no proof for declaring Palestinian NGOs ‘terrorists’"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defragmenting Palestine: Breaking the Barriers from Sheikh Jarrah to Lydda, Gaza, and Beyond​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Israel is an apartheid state w/ Haidar Eid, Jeff Halper, Noura Mansour & Arie Huybregts​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rashida Tlaib, Diana Buttu*









						This Is Palestine
					

'This Is Palestine' is a podcast that highlights people, issues, and events around Palestine. We bring you stories from the ground in Palestine, and we speak with experts and activists to bring you unique perspectives and analysis about Palestine from across the world. This podcast is a project...




					pod.link


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> why is there talk of a two-state solution when the “country of Pal’istan” already exists?


Interesting. The Palestinians are no longer talking about "creating" a state. They just say Palestine like it already exists. For many, it does.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Imagining the Way(s) Forward: PART 1 - Palestinian Thought Leaders​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting. The Palestinians are no longer talking about "creating" a state. They just say Palestine like it already exists. For many, it does.


Interesting. Click the heels together on your ruby red slippers three times and dreams come true.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Imagining the Way(s) Forward - Part 2: Jewish-Israeli Thought Leaders​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Notice he mentions _"Algeria was almost not considered a colony, but a part of the French territory"_
due to what he calls a 'strong French claim to Algeria'_, _which is similar to the Arab supremacist
claim that "_Palestine is an integral part of the bigger Arab world"..._

*Q.* How do you *decolonize* a Mediterranean country,
by demanding it remains a colony of Arab imperialism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More bullshit out of Israel!*

The Terrorism Smear: Israel’s Move to Shut Down Palestinian Human Rights Work​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

Arafat: We want an Arab state from Africa to Yemen​


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

US Media and the Arab World: Freedom of Expression on Palestine​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> US Media and the Arab World: Freedom of Expression on Palestine​



Interesting candidate,

maybe he should become their president,
if Arabs ever allow Africans in any of their governments?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


The above is a HOOT!  Biden can't even manage the affairs in the U.S.

Please tell us, What is a " Just and Peaceful Resolution?"  A eventual majority of Palestinians denying Israeli entry to certain parts of the " New State" including their Religious Sites?
  THAT SHIP HAS SAILED


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel - Turning blood into money*

2021 Edward Said Memorial Lecture with Susan Abulhawa​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

At the outset, the Opening Remarks admits that the US does not have an official _(public)_ Policy on Palestine.  So you might actually see this discussion as a  "Supernatural" Issue _(said in a humorous tone)_.  


P F Tinmore said:


> ​


*(COMMENT)*
.
One might think from an academic perspective that the US Government must actually have a policy.  *IF* the US must have such a policy, *THEN* what drives that requirement.

Well, in fact, the US is not required to have any such policy.  And no such policy can be algebraically deduced by the assimilation of other policies in proximity.  The US cannot be criticized for a policy it does not have.  (_The political ghost in the political machine._)

Most academics and diplomats view the necessity of political policy, and 




*SOURCE*:  _Hyperpolitics: an interactive dictionary of
political science concepts_ / Mauro Calise and 
Theodore J. Lowi.  © 2010 by The University of Chicago, pp 183​its constituent parts, in a pre-20th Century form → two-dimensionally.  They neither see the depth nor forecast the temporal effects of a set policy, or the absence of a set policy, on the future.  And that is what makes this particular presentation diagnostically interesting.  Because the opening admits that the US does not have a policy and therefore must be derived in a three-dimensional fashion (_three layers on top of each other_).

What the listener takes away from this presentation is virtually nothing more than what they brought to the table.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> At the outset, the Opening Remarks admits that the US does not have an official _(public)_ Policy on Palestine.  So you might actually see this discussion as a  "Supernatural" Issue _(said in a humorous tone)_.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> One might think from an academic perspective that the US Government must actually have a policy.  *IF* the US must have such a policy, *THEN* what drives that requirement.
> 
> Well, in fact, the US is not required to have any such policy.  And no such policy can be algebraically deduced by the assimilation of other policies in proximity.  The US cannot be criticized for a policy it does not have.  (_The political ghost in the political machine._)
> 
> Most academics and diplomats view the necessity of political policy, and
> 
> View attachment 562403
> *SOURCE*:  _Hyperpolitics: an interactive dictionary of
> political science concepts_ / Mauro Calise and
> Theodore J. Lowi.  © 2010 by The University of Chicago, pp 183​its constituent parts, in a pre-20th Century form → two-dimensionally.  They neither see the depth nor forecast the temporal effects of a set policy, or the absence of a set policy, on the future.  And that is what makes this particular presentation diagnostically interesting.  Because the opening admits that the US does not have a policy and therefore must be derived in a three-dimensional fashion (_three layers on top of each other_).
> 
> What the listener takes away from this presentation is virtually nothing more than what they brought to the table.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Does the US have a Palestine policy?

The Israel policy is to shovel money and weapons to Israel and let them kill as many Palestinians as they want.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: US - Israeli Agreement
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

*BLUF*:  Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and Israel set the funding levels at ≈ $3.3 billion in Foreign Military (FMS) potential @ ≈ $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense over each of the next ten years.  This has two components to it.

◈     Protecting the greatest ally of the US in the Middle East Region.​​◈     Maintaining our greatest ally with the best Qualitative Military Edge (QME) should the need arise to activate the Mutual Defense Pact.​


P F Tinmore said:


> Does the US have a Palestine policy?
> 
> The Israel policy is to shovel money and weapons to Israel and let them kill as many Palestinians as they want.


.
*(COMMENT)*

The mutual defense pact with Israel has absolutely nothing (_whatsoever_) to do with the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the Israelis.

Again, this is misinformation that is intended to deceive the audience.  It is the type and kind of deceptive advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. 
It is an HoAP violation of Article 20(2), *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).

This is something we have come to expect from the Arab Palestinians.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The mutual defense pact with Israel has absolutely nothing (_whatsoever_) to do with the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the Israelis.


Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.


YAWN…..Israel has no RIGHT TO EXIST which is what “ Right of Return “ is all about
The “ International Community “ recognized a long time ago this is a DOA issue


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

Remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.


P F Tinmore said:


> Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is deceptive misinformation.

There is no "Settler colonialism."  Settlements were agreed to by the Arab Palestinians (full control of Area "C").

You want it to be classified as an "Act of Aggression," as a means to justify violence.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> YAWN…..Israel has no RIGHT TO EXIST which is what “ Right of Return “ is all about
> The “ International Community “ recognized a long time ago this is a DOA issue


Glad Tinmore is laughing. I’m hysterical


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is deceptive misinformation.
> 
> There is no "Settler colonialism."  Settlements were agreed to by the Arab Palestinians (full control of Area "C").
> 
> You want it to be classified as an "Act of Aggression," as a means to justify violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Settler colonialism started long before Oslo.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Taking Direct Action For Palestine - With Huda Ammori​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Keynote Address​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Keynote Address​


YAWN….  How many times has he posted the same thing over and over?   Lol


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> YAWN….  How many times has he posted the same thing over and over?   Lol


At least he stopped posting the Link where the HASIDIC RABBI and HAMAS were dancing because they BOTH agreed Israel didn’t have the right to exist
  I exposed him for the LIAR that he is


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Human rights: Rhetoric vs Reality​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Israeli Rights and Obligations​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?​


YAWN…..😇


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ _et al_,

For those of you that know me (_from past commentaries_), I normally promote the reading of viewing anti-Israeli --- pro-Palestinian propaganda.  It is important to understand the opposing point of view.

This is one of those rare cases that I (unequivocally) express my (personal) view that it is a waste of time.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Israeli Rights and Obligations​


*(COMMENT)*
.
Professor Michael Lynk travels back in time to demonize the practices that were acceptable in their day. _(Scottland, Ireland, Canada, Algeria, South Africa, the Baltic States and the Western Sahara)_ just to name a few.  Of course, Professor Lynk purposely avoids the historical fact that the Arab Palestinians never actually had any sovereign control over the territory in question.

 Dimitri Lascaris is a Canadian Lawyer, closet journalist, and anti-Israeli activist from Montreal.  He wants you to believe that the one million (plus) descentants of the displaced Palestines (even though they have never actually lived in Israel) have a riight to return to what they Gazan consider their country.  I'm not exactly sure how many of our readers are native Americans.  But a vast majority of American are descendents from other lands.  I'm Ito-Americano (Italian American).  Supose the 6% of the Americans who hold Italian descent (approx 17 Million) were to demand a right to return to Italy (having a polulation of about 60 million).   That would change the demographic over night with the Ito-Americano being almost a quarter of the population.

There is no suchthing as a blanket Right-of-Return (RoR).  Dimitri would have you believe that A/RES/194 "guarantees the RoR for the Palestinians.  Well, *A/RES/194* IS NOT LAW.  It guarantees nothing.  AND, equally important is the fact that the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) says something different.

◈   General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194​​✦   Is a non-binding resolution.​​✦   A/RES/194 of December 1948, cannot be made binding on a situation retroactively.  The central theme and basic principle of legality or_ nullum crimen, __*nulla poena sine lege*_. ​
◈      *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) ​​_*Article 12*_​​1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​
Every ordinary person can see the two problems here:​​* ✦ Article 2(7) of the UN Charter* says:​​*✧   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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​​✧  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.  Para 13b • A/AC.21/10. 16 February 1948​​✧  The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.  Para 13g •  A/AC.21/10.  16 February 1948​
Another point that the pro-Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israel compact always avoid is that the matter of the definition of a "refugee."  While the pro-Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israel compact want to use the eligibility criteria for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) serivices, that is not a legal definition.  That would make the Arab Palestinians dislaced a special case, different from every other refugee in the world.  And while the Arab Palestinian like to think of themselves as different or spcial, they are not.  For instance, the Jordanians gave the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem citizenship on the annexation of that territory.

Generally Speaking, the Arab Palestinians ceased to be refugees: 

◈      When the Arab Palestinians lost his nationality, then voluntarily reacquired it through Egypt or Jordan.​​◈      When the Arab Palestinians has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality;​​◈      When the Arab Palestinians, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the Israeli Civil Administration;​
 *(Ω )* 

I'm not saying you should not watch the video.  But it will be an hour I'll never get back from what little time I have remaining, AND, the blood I lost when I banged my head on the desk.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> YAWN…..😇


A silly youtube video that P T Tinmore dumps multiple times into multiple threads.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✧ 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. Para 13b • A/AC.21/10. 16 February 1948


Good read, thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✧ The Arabs of Palestine 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.


The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ _et al_,

*BLUF*:  This is not accurate at all.  This is the case where the Hostile Arab Palestinians desperately want to blame a colonial mission on a colonial power.  It helps them to justify their psychopathic pattern of behavior.



> RoccoR said:
> ✧ The Arabs of Palestine 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.





P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.  

◈   The phrase "their country" is to render the emotion that something was taken from the Arab Palestinian.​​◈    The phrase "colonial settlers" is an attempt to demonize those that the Allied Powers recognized and facilitated the immigration process to the territory.​​◈    The phrase "had every right to reject" implies that something improper or unfair was offered to the Arab Palestinians.​
Tiny commentaries such as this often have no real information to impart.  It is mostly propaganda generated by the opposing side of the commentary.
.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.


Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

*BLUF*:  The United States never belonged to the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Italians, or the Palestinians.  But you will not find a link that says that.  You will find a history of various exploring powers that, at various points in time, lay claim to portions of North America.



RoccoR said:


> The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.





P F Tinmore said:


> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

If the Arab Palestinians, even once, in the last Millenium, held governmental control over any portion of the regional territory in dispute today, there would be a record. 

There is a difference between being the "resident" and being the "owner."






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The United States never belonged to the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Italians, or the Palestinians. But you will not find a link that says that.


Then why do you shovel crap that you cannot prove?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> If the Arab Palestinians, even once, in the last Millenium, held governmental control


There you go again.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,


			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

>


*(COMMENT)*
.
Well, the problem with your critique is that:

◈   I did not say I could prove it.​"But *you* will not find a link that says that."​​◈   I implied that you cannot prove it.​ "there would be a record"​
The notion that the Arab Palestinians exercised sovereignty (_the idea it was their territory → territorial integrity__)_ during the time of the Ottman Empire is much like supernatural claims (_King Solomon's mine_) or the beliefs in magic (_Merlin_).  

Other than the silliness in the Declaration by the All Palestine Government (_which tried to overturn the Right of Self-Determination of the Israelis_), I only ask that you show in good faith, what evidence you have to support your notion?

There is no known "binding" international agreement concluded between any early 20th Century State and the Arab Palestinian, in any form, establishing any sovereignty over any territory to - or for - or in the name of the Arab Palestinians.   There is no instrument in which the parties (_members of the Allied Powers or Central Powers_) promise some territory to Arab Palestinian, either at a fixed or determinable future time - or - by Arab Palestinian demand, under specific terms. 

If there is, and you have such secret knowledge, please show me.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is no known "binding" international agreement, blah, blah, blah.


You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.

After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.

The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.

Definition of _inalienable_​*: *incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred









						Definition of INALIENABLE
					

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights & Obligations​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,


P F Tinmore said:


> You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.


*(COMMENT)*

Oh, I understand this false belief perfectly.  And this is a revised set of reasonings that are a must for the Arab Palestinians to believe in order to justify their incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence that is prohibited by law.

This misinterpretation (*intentional deception*) falls behind the meaning of Article 30 and the required assimilation of the inhabitants once a final decision is made.  Article 30 (_*as is the entire treaty*_) is an agreement between the parties to the treaty.  It has no obligation or promise to the Arab Palestinian.

If anyone here is trying to obfuscate the reality of the political conditions of a century ago, it is you.  At the time the covenant, convention, treaties, and mandates were agreed upon, the Allied Powers really did not have a final plan in place.  That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty."  That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians (*"the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned"*).



P F Tinmore said:


> After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Allied powers did opt to use the historical regional names in some cases (*Lebanon - Syria - Most of the Vilayah of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem became Palestine - Jordan was a carveout of the Vilayah of Damascus*) but in other cases not (_Mesopotamia became Iraq - most of the Nejd, Asir, and Hejaz became Saudi Arabia_) 

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty."  That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians (*"the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned"*).



P F Tinmore said:


> The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.
> Definition of _inalienable_​*: *incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred


*(COMMENT)*
.
I simply don't know where you get these thoughts.  *There are 9 core international human rights instruments*.  There is no binding agreement that recognizes a separate category of "Inalienable Rights."  From an international perspective, there is no mutually agreed-upon list of such rights.  Even the "right to life" {*PART III  *_*Article 6 • *__*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__* • *_1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.} is not universally recognized by the Arab Palestinians.  HAMAS (_The Islamic Resistance Movement_) has its own brand of justice.  They have been known to exercise summary justice on the street.  
Hamas’ Anti-Semitism Publicly Exposed After Leader Urges Palestinians to Kill ‘Every Jew’ ​Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel: We Long for Bus Bombings​Your words are hollow.  The meaning is just camoflage to appear as if to hold a rightious cause.  But in truth, the Arab Palestinian (_while not the greatest threat to humanity_) represent a morally corrupt and unjust society and a danger to civilization everywhere.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This misinterpretation (*intentional deception*) falls behind the meaning of Article 30


Article 30 did not transfer the territory. It merely stated where it went. It was the final destination.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."


That was in 1922. The Treaty of Lausanne was in 1924.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Oh, I understand this false belief perfectly.  And this is a revised set of reasonings that are a must for the Arab Palestinians to believe in order to justify their incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence that is prohibited by law.
> 
> This misinterpretation (*intentional deception*) falls behind the meaning of Article 30 and the required assimilation of the inhabitants once a final decision is made.  Article 30 (_*as is the entire treaty*_) is an agreement between the parties to the treaty.  It has no obligation or promise to the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> If anyone here is trying to obfuscate the reality of the political conditions of a century ago, it is you.  At the time the covenant, convention, treaties, and mandates were agreed upon, the Allied Powers really did not have a final plan in place.  That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."
> 
> The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty."  That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians (*"the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned"*).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Allied powers did opt to use the historical regional names in some cases (*Lebanon - Syria - Most of the Vilayah of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem became Palestine - Jordan was a carveout of the Vilayah of Damascus*) but in other cases not (_Mesopotamia became Iraq - most of the Nejd, Asir, and Hejaz became Saudi Arabia_)
> 
> The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty."  That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians (*"the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned"*).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> I simply don't know where you get these thoughts.  *There are 9 core international human rights instruments*.  There is no binding agreement that recognizes a separate category of "Inalienable Rights."  From an international perspective, there is no mutually agreed-upon list of such rights.  Even the "right to life" {*PART III  *_*Article 6 • *__*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*__* • *_1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.} is not universally recognized by the Arab Palestinians.  HAMAS (_The Islamic Resistance Movement_) has its own brand of justice.  They have been known to exercise summary justice on the street.
> Hamas’ Anti-Semitism Publicly Exposed After Leader Urges Palestinians to Kill ‘Every Jew’ ​Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel: We Long for Bus Bombings​Your words are hollow.  The meaning is just camoflage to appear as if to hold a rightious cause.  But in truth, the Arab Palestinian (_while not the greatest threat to humanity_) represent a morally corrupt and unjust society and a danger to civilization everywhere.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Holy obfuscation, Batman.

I don't see where you refuted anything in my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Is Israel an Apartheid State?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights to Resources​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.



Exactly the argument to reject Arab sovereignty,
anywhere between the East and West banks of the river.

Don't Palestinians also have a right to reject Arab supremacy?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.
> 
> After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.
> 
> The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.
> 
> Definition of _inalienable_​*: *incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of INALIENABLE
> 
> 
> incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com



Maybe your narrative is full of logical contradictions.
and understanding that you expect nothing is questioned.

For example, you argue Transjordan's and Palestine's "defined international borders",
using the Treaty of Lausanne which mentions neither Transjordan nor Palestine.
Statements said in the UN are neither expression of reality or law.

What does it get you so far?

Furthermore, regarding Inalienable Rights - the Treaty of Lausanne refers to the authority of the League of Nations, which decisions are international law binding upon the UN, with rights emanating from them having no statute of limitations. Therefore the UN cannot pass a legally binding resolution
contrary to recognized inalienable Jewish title to Palestine and law on its books.

Any law authorizes Arab sovereignty in Palestine?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Then why do you shovel crap that you cannot prove?



If your last resort is asking to prove a negative,
then already you admit to lose the argument. 

Can you prove water is not wet?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> If your last resort is asking to prove a negative,
> then already you admit to lose the argument.
> 
> Can you prove water is not wet?


Why pull something out of your ass then duck out when asked to prove it?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> There you go again.



But can you show us that Arabs ever
actually govern a state called Palestine?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Why pull something out of your ass then duck out when asked to prove it?



That is exactly the question you evade.
Does any law authorize Arab sovereignty in Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> That is exactly the question you evade.
> Does any law authorize Arab sovereignty in Palestine?


Good question. Ask the UN that's what they say.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. Ask the UN that's what they say.



Anything "they say" that is binding,
or your usual unicorns in Narnia?

The UN is bound by laws inherited from the League of Nations.
clearly referred to in the Treaty of Lausanne which you keep bringing up.
That's why the UN can't authorize a binding resolution contrary to the inalienable
rights and title of the Jewish nation to Palestine, which has no statues of limitations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> rights and title of the Jewish nation to Palestine,


Links?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Links?



Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.





__





						League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922)
					

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922) at ECF.org's interactive database




					ecf.org.il
				




These are the inalienable rights which have no statutes of limitations,
the UN is bound by them, in article 80 of its charter,
and further article 70(1b) of Law of Treaties.

Which is why mere statements in the UN,
give no legal authority to what you say.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.


It wasn't about a Jewish state. It was about Jewish citizenship in Palestine.

Article 7
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a
nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It wasn't about a Jewish state. It was about Jewish citizenship in Palestine.
> 
> Article 7
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a
> nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.



As it was illegal to prevent acquisition of citizenship by Jews,
all legal reference to nationality and sovereignty is bound
with the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

And only the titled nation has the
legal authority to interpret that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> As it was illegal to prevent acquisition of citizenship by Jews,
> all legal reference to nationality and sovereignty is bound
> with the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Only the titled nation can interpret that.


HUH?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> HUH?



What don't you understand?
All mention of sovereignty is in reference
to the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.
And only Israel has the title to interpret that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> What don't you understand?
> All mention of sovereignty is in reference
> to the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.
> And only Israel has the title to interpret that.


No territory was ceded to a Jewish state.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> No territory was ceded to a Jewish state.


When was that needed?
No territory was ceded to any of the Arab states.
Let alone territory defined by Jewish national re-constitution.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation and Political Entropy
⁜→ _et al_,

In the beginning (*turn of the 19th Century into the 20th Century*), the Jewish National Home (JNH) was a futuristic concept in which many people had varying ides on its structure and development.  What people envisioned was different from person to person.



P F Tinmore said:


> It wasn't about a Jewish state. It was about Jewish citizenship in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, at the simplest of levels in understanding, you have part of this correct.  But the "Primary" idea was that a JNH be established in some for; whatever those forms would turn out to be.

The secondary objectives were the attempt to maintain the Civil and Political Rights of the Arab inhabitants, that being the Civil and Political Rights as they were understood to be in 1920 (NOT 2020).  You must ask yourself, what Civil and Political Rights did the Arab Palestinians have in 1920 _*(as the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers understood them to be when they agreed upon the framework*_)?

The unspoken assumption was that the inhabitants, of the newly released from the Occupied Enemy Territory and placed under Civil Administration, would not only cooperate but also fervently assist in the reconstruction of the territory to accommodate the Mandate.  By the late 1930s it became un-mistakenly obvious that an advanced stage of civil and political entropy was taking its toll.

New political approaches had to be devised to overcome what was fast becoming "irreconcilable conflict of principles" between the Jewish and Arab communities.  What was assumed to be true in the 1920s was definitely not true in the 1940s.  Concepts had to change.  These "irreconcilable conflict of principles" are what ultimately drove the Two-State Solution to maturity.



P F Tinmore said:


> Article 7
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a
> nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The phrase the "Administration of Palestine" was taken to mean the Civil Administration that took over from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration in June 1920.  It did not mean some unidentifiable permanent government under the total administration of the Arab Palestinians.  An Arab government capable of dismantling the JNH under domestic law through the Arab majority rule.  The idea behind the decisions by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers was to create a framework under which the JNH would remain a viable entity once the territory to which the Mandate applied was released.  However, The discredited King-Crane Commission stated in its report:


“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in 
Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by 
the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out 
*except by forces of arms*.”​
Article 7 really has little to do with the Arab -Jewish back-biting and end-fighting ignited by the worsening political conditions, coupled with the economic impact, between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers plus (two decades later) the Axis Powers.
.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.


The "country" you insist was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne, despite the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne did no such thing?

Living under such delusions is a sad existence. 

Still nothing on those "new states" you insist were also invented.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation and Political Entropy
⁜→ _et al_,


P F Tinmore said:


> No territory was ceded to a Jewish state.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Allied Powers really did not want to be put in the position of making such decisions.

No territory under British Mandate was ceded in any fashion except to the Arab (*the Arab Hashemite Kings*)(_*Jordan • Iraq*_).

The remaining territories were established under the Right of Self-Determination.  
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Why pull something out of your ass then duck out when asked to prove it?


That's why your youtube video cutting and pasting is a total hoot.


----------



## rylah

Actually. when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, *it becomes the Law of the U.S.*

Following with Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo-American Convention,
recognition of the inalienable Jewish right to national reconstitution,
makes it the law of the land, as well binding in the US.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> When was that needed?
> No territory was ceded to any of the Arab states.
> Let alone territory defined by Jewish national re-constitution.


Not true. Territory was ceded to all of the Arab states.

None to Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> New political approaches had to be devised to overcome what was fast becoming "irreconcilable conflict of principles" between the Jewish and Arab communities.


The plan was irreconcilable from the git go. Btitain was just too fucking stupid to see it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The "country" you insist was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne, despite the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne did no such thing?
> 
> Living under such delusions is a sad existence.
> 
> Still nothing on those "new states" you insist were also invented.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No territory under British Mandate was ceded in any fashion except to the Arab (*the Arab Hashemite Kings*)(_*Jordan • Iraq*_).


That was pre planned before the Mandate. See article 25.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Actually. when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, *it becomes the Law of the U.S.*
> 
> Following with Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo-American Convention,
> recognition of the inalienable Jewish right to national reconstitution,
> makes it the law of the land, as well binding in the US.


Law of the wrong land. The US doesn't count.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Law of the wrong land. The US doesn't count.



It's international law, recognized by the Senate and House of Representatives,
signed in identical form by the President - and as international law,
counts and binding, see art VI par. 2 of US Constitution.

US law prevents infringement to Israeli sovereignty.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. Territory was ceded to all of the Arab states.
> 
> None to Israel.



Which Arab state got territory ceded to it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Which Arab state got territory ceded to it?


All five.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> All five.



There're only five Arab states in the world,
or only five that had their territory ceded to them?

Shows you're not a BIG MOUTH pulling mambo jambo out the bottom...


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> There're only five Arab states in the world,
> or only five that had their territory ceded to them?
> 
> Shows you're not a BIG MOUTH pulling mambo jambo out the bottom...


Not surprised that you don't know which ones I mean.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Not surprised that you don't know which ones I mean.



For one you don't even know how many Arab states there are in the world,
let alone backup any of that mambo jambo you pull out the bottom.

Isn't that true BIG MOUTH ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine international Law Symposium: Dueling Perspectives​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Palestine international Law Symposium: Canada's Rights and Obligations​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel Palestine international Law Symposium: Canada's Rights and Obligations​


🥱   😆  😹


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Mainstreaming of American Antisemitism: The Defeat of an Ideal​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Should We Respond to Antisemitism Now with Charles Jacobs​


----------



## P F Tinmore

An Examination of American Culture and the Declining Jewish Influence on It​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation and Political Entropy
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,






P F Tinmore said:


> That was pre planned before the Mandate. See article 25.


*(COMMENT)*
.
 This is no startling revelation.  In fact, it is further evidence that my position if true.
​


​
As you can see, over 70% of the territory formerly under the Mandate became an Arab Country.  What you should take away from the discussion, in regards to the Hashemite Kingdom, is that it was ≈ 70% of the original Mandate.  So, right out of the box, this portion of the Mandate Territory met the Article 22(4) from the Covenant of the League of Nations (LoN):  


			
				LoN Covenant (1919) said:
			
		

> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.


. This is related to:  
_The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919 (Part I)_.


Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the *Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*.​
* SOURCE*:  *History Office Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*

Having said all this is just reenforcement of my original comment:  "No territory under British Mandate was ceded in any fashion except to the Arab (_the Arab Hashemite Kings_)(_Jordan • Iraq_)."
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> All five.


Were those the five "new states" invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Having said all this is just reenforcement of my original comment: "No territory under British Mandate was ceded in any fashion except to the Arab (_the Arab Hashemite Kings_)(_Jordan • Iraq_)."


No Palestinian land was ceded to Transjordan. Transjordan was established in 1922 and the land was ceded to Transjordan directly from Turkey in 1924.

BTW, the mandate was forbiden from ceding Palestinian land to any foreign entity. I don't remember which article it was.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't remember which article it was.



Good answer.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Were those the five "new states" invented by the Treaty of Lausanne?


   The Treaty of Lausanne did not invent new states. Those states were already planned by the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne merely transferred the sovereignty from Turkey to the people of the new states.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Good answer.


For those to lazy to look it up.

*ART. 5.*​The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no *Palestine territory *shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne did not invent new states. Those states were already planned by the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne merely transferred the sovereignty from Turkey to the people of the new states.


What ''new states'' were planned?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> For those to lazy to look it up.
> 
> *ART. 5.*​The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no *Palestine territory *shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.



As so-called Palestinians held no sovereign territory, where was this ''palestinian territory''?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> As so-called Palestinians held no sovereign territory,


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> For those to lazy to look it up.
> 
> *ART. 5.*​The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no *Palestine territory *shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.


That is why no territory was ever transferred to Israel.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?



Yes, link. 

You should be able to provide a link identifying sovereign territory maintained by the Pallys (the Arabs-Moslems who, as you know, occupied lands controlled by the Ottoman Turks. 

As we know, no such territory soverjgn to the Arab-Moslem occupiers existed. 

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That is why no territory was ever transferred to Israel.



What transfer was required?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne did not invent new states. Those states were already planned by the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne merely transferred the sovereignty from Turkey to the people of the new states.


I still can't find the names or locations of those pre-planned "new states."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> I still can't find the names or locations of those pre-planned "new states."


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>





















Good answer.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That is why no territory was ever transferred to Israel.


Was territory transferred to the Arabs-Moslems?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Yes, link.
> 
> You should be able to provide a link identifying sovereign territory maintained by the Pallys (the Arabs-Moslems who, as you know, occupied lands controlled by the Ottoman Turks.
> 
> As we know, no such territory soverjgn to the Arab-Moslem occupiers existed.
> 
> Link?


The people of a defined territory are the sovereigns of that territory. This is not handed out be world powers. This is an inherent quality of international law. It is because it is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Was territory transferred to the Arabs-Moslems?


The territory was transferred to Palestine. Religion and ethnicity were irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Good answer.


I am trying not to go over your head.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I am trying not to go over your head.


You can't find a youtube video.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The territory was transferred to Palestine. Religion and ethnicity were irrelevant.


What territory was transferred?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is because it is.


"... because I say so"

That may work well at your madrassah but is hardly relevant.

Time to trot out your Zebra again?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation and Political Entropy
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,


P F Tinmore said:


> No Palestinian land was ceded to Transjordan. Transjordan was established in 1922 and the land was ceded to Transjordan directly from Turkey in 1924.


*(COMMENT)*

There was no obligation made to a Arab-Palestineian Entity under any formal document until sometime after 1948.  The Palestinians were not a party to any treaty or convention During the establishment of the First Wold War Supreme Council of the Allied Powers.  Just to be clear, The Government of Palestine ( = The British Government).  During the tenure of the under which the terrify was subject to the Mandate for Palestine, the *High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials*.    The Anglo-Transjordan Treaty "stipulated on 15 May 1923 that Transjordan would be The Government of Palestine (UK) prepared for independence *under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state*."  

On *March 22, 1946,* Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, "*ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan*."  
*(COUNTERPOINT)*

ARTICLE 16 of the *Treaty of Lausanne* does not distribute any territory - anywhere relative to the territory former the administration of the Mandate (1922).  It is the delineation and renouncement of territory outside the Turkish Republic.  Article 30 insure that there will be no one without a nationality (ie no refugees).  Nowhere in the Treaty allows for the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to make final disposition of any territory.​​The Treaty is an Instrument, that serves to protect ALL the parties that are considered to have agreed to it.  The instrument does not recognize the ascension of the Palestinians recognize as an entity/party to the agreement.​

* Preamble & Paragraph 2, UK-TransJordan Treaty 1946.*​*Considering that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have formally declared in the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation that they intend to recognise the status of Trans-Jordan as a sovereign independent State; and
*
*ARTICLE 1. UK-TransJordan Treaty 1946.*​*His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
*


P F Tinmore said:


> *BTW, the mandate was forbiden from ceding Palestinian land to any foreign entity. I don't remember which article it was.*


*(COMMENT)*

That does not prevent the Allied Powers from taking action.  It only says the "Mandatory" cannot cede to a foreign.  That is not what happened.  The Government of Palestine particianed a portion of the Territory (set-aside) for independence.  

*Article 5
Mandate For Palestine*​The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
*
.




Most Respectfully,
R
*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation and Political Entropy
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was no obligation made to a Arab-Palestineian Entity under any formal document until sometime after 1948.  The Palestinians were not a party to any treaty or convention During the establishment of the First Wold War Supreme Council of the Allied Powers.  Just to be clear, The Government of Palestine ( = The British Government).  During the tenure of the under which the terrify was subject to the Mandate for Palestine, the *High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials*.    The Anglo-Transjordan Treaty "stipulated on 15 May 1923 that Transjordan would be The Government of Palestine (UK) prepared for independence *under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state*."
> 
> On *March 22, 1946,* Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, "*ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan*."
> *(COUNTERPOINT)*
> 
> ARTICLE 16 of the *Treaty of Lausanne* does not distribute any territory - anywhere relative to the territory former the administration of the Mandate (1922).  It is the delineation and renouncement of territory outside the Turkish Republic.  Article 30 insure that there will be no one without a nationality (ie no refugees).  Nowhere in the Treaty allows for the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to make final disposition of any territory.​​The Treaty is an Instrument, that serves to protect ALL the parties that are considered to have agreed to it.  The instrument does not recognize the ascension of the Palestinians recognize as an entity/party to the agreement.​
> 
> * Preamble & Paragraph 2, UK-TransJordan Treaty 1946.*​*Considering that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have formally declared in the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation that they intend to recognise the status of Trans-Jordan as a sovereign independent State; and*
> 
> *ARTICLE 1. UK-TransJordan Treaty 1946.*​*His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
> There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> That does not prevent the Allied Powers from taking action.  It only says the "Mandatory" cannot cede to a foreign.  That is not what happened.  The Government of Palestine particianed a portion of the Territory (set-aside) for independence.
> 
> *Article 5
> Mandate For Palestine*​The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*


The bottom line is that the people of the place hold the sovereignty. The Palestinians are the people and Palestine is the place. Nobody else has any authority there. Once the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified, Palestine's borders were closed to foreign interference..


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Sovereignty (again).
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

*OPENING*:  The reality is, that this concept - people of the place hold the sovereignty → is not universally true, and certainly has not been a concept throughout time.  In fact, people holding the Right to Self-Determination (and there by sovereignty) is relatively new .
​

			
				Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *self-determination and secession*     One of the principal difficulties in relation to the exercise of the right of self-determination is in the identifi cation of what is to be regarded as a people for the purpose of exercising the right to self-determination. The right clearly *applies to colonial peoples, for which it was originally intended*. In such cases, the right of self-determination has been used to bring about the independence of colonies and trust territories since the 1960s. _*However, it would appear that the right of self-determination may not be applicable once a colony or trust territory has achieved independence*_.
> *SOURCE*: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law 3ed Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 551





P F Tinmore said:


> The bottom line is that the people of the place hold the sovereignty. The Palestinians are the people and Palestine is the place. Nobody else has any authority there. Once the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified, Palestine's borders were closed to foreign interference..


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Arab Palestinian has been entangled in these various concepts (_*principal difficulties in relation to the exercise of the right of self-determination*_) for over a half century.  Like kids fighting over a the use of a swing or sandbox, the Arab Palestinians are chalk full of sound-bites just like the one you use here.

The Border of Palestine, between 1922 →1948, was not frozen in time.  In point of fact, the territory to which the Mandate applied was defined by the Allied Powers (_San Remo 1920_), "_*within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*_."  The Allied Powers could have changed the boundaries at any time.  They had the power to redefine the bounders, but the Arab Palestinians, through conflict.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Sovereignty (again).
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> *OPENING*:  The reality is, that this concept - people of the place hold the sovereignty → is not universally true, and certainly has not been a concept throughout time.  In fact, people holding the Right to Self-Determination (and there by sovereignty) is relatively new .
> ​
> ​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The Arab Palestinian has been entangled in these various concepts (_*principal difficulties in relation to the exercise of the right of self-determination*_) for over a half century.  Like kids fighting over a the use of a swing or sandbox, the Arab Palestinians are chalk full of sound-bites just like the one you use here.
> 
> The Border of Palestine, between 1922 →1948, was not frozen in time.  In point of fact, the territory to which the Mandate applied was defined by the Allied Powers (_San Remo 1920_), "_*within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*_."  The Allied Powers could have changed the boundaries at any time.  They had the power to redefine the bounders, but the Arab Palestinians, through conflict.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You seem to have a lot of problems with my people of the place concept.



> Popular sovereignty is government based on consent of the people. The government’s source of authority is the people, and its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. Government established by free choice of the people is expected to serve *the people, who have sovereignty,* or supreme power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular Sovereignty
> 
> 
> Popular sovereignty is government based on consent of the people. The government’s source of authority is the people, and its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. Government established by
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.annenbergclassroom.org



If the citizens of a country do not have sovereignty, who then? Foreign settlers with guns?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Sovereignty (again • again).
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

The Annenberg Foundation is a great reference source of information.  But it assumes, in the classroom, that you come to learn, as opposed to shopping for sound-bites that support your preconceived notions.



P F Tinmore said:


> If the citizens of a country do not have sovereignty, who then? Foreign settlers with guns?
> You don't make any sense.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Directly to the Questions 

"First, the people are involved either directly or through their representatives in the making of a constitution."  (_*Annenberg Foundation Website*_)   This is not true in the many governments of the Middle East.  And it is particularly true in the case of the Arab Palestinians governments of Fatah and The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).  While there was a moment in which it might have appeared to have been a Republic (_or through their representatives_), the sovereignty today, what little their is, 

Q1:  If the citizens of a country do not have sovereignty, who then?​​◈   There is no "universally accepted correct answer to this question.  ​​✦   In the case of the Arab Palestinian Gaza Strip, the ultimate authority is HAMAS.  ​​✦   In the case of the Arab Palestinian West Bank, it is Fatah.​​Q2:  Foreign settlers with guns?​​◈   This alternative is a dependent answer.  In "YOUR" case, you consider the Israelis to be both a domestic power and a foreign power.​​In the argument you push where "Palestine" is set by the post war boundaries (WWI) and the establishment is the Treaty of Lausanne, THEN the conflict (Israeli-Palestinian) is totally domestic, within a single country that you propose is there.  (_ie "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit._)​​


			
				Chapter I • Purpose and Principles •• Article 2(7) UN Charter said:
			
		

> 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> ​


✦   Palestine, *with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate*, is an indivisible territorial unit.​✦ Palestine, which extends *from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean* in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit.​
In the argument pushed (by some Arab Palestinian factions) where "Palestine,"  a State of Palestine based on pre-4 JUNE 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital (prior to the Six Day War), it becomes an International Armed Conflict (IAC)(Common Article 2 to the Geneva Conventions).  An IAC  is generally considered as having included wars of national liberation, against colonial domination, alien occupation, and against the right to self-determination.  But this is one-country (Palestine) against another country (Israeli).  And thus, the State of Israel must be recognized as a country in it's own right.  And that would rule-out "colonial domination."  The conflict (called by the Arab Palestinians as a national liberation effort) has not ended and so such "Occupation" is a necessary criteria for the control of a hostile government.

✦    The Islamic Resistance Movement *“Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement*.​✦   Commando action constitutes _the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war_.​.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You seem to have a lot of problems with my people of the place concept.
> 
> 
> 
> If the citizens of a country do not have sovereignty, who then? Foreign settlers with guns?
> 
> You don't make any sense.


Speaking of not making sense, "citizens of a country...."

Ignoring facts while inventing your own facts (the "country of Pal'istan" being invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924), pretty much defines "not making sense".


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "First, the people are involved either directly or through their representatives in the making of a constitution." (_*Annenberg Foundation Website*_)


Interesting.

In 1999 the Palestine Legislation Council (PLC, the elected parliament) formed a constitution. (Basic Law) This included things like the power of the government comes from the will of the people. All Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc.. religious freedom. It also included a bill of rights similar to but more comprehensive than that in the US.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Speaking of not making sense, "citizens of a country...."
> 
> Ignoring facts while inventing your own facts (the "country of Pal'istan" being invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924), pretty much defines "not making sense".


Read the Mandate document. Palestine was called a country many times. Israeli bullshit propaganda won't mention that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Read the Mandate document. Palestine was called a country many times. Israeli bullshit propaganda won't mention that.


Oh, OK. So you're claiming that "the mandate" invented the "country of Pal'istan"?

Not once in the document is there any citation for a "country of Pal'istan". It seems in your desperate desire to believe that such a "country" once existed, you will rewrite whatever documents you can find to make your "country of Pal'istan" come true.

Have you tried clicking the heels of your ruby red slippers three times?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Sovereignty (again • again • again).
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting.
> 
> In 1999 the Palestine Legislation Council (PLC, the elected parliament) formed a constitution. (Basic Law) This included things like the power of the government comes from the will of the people. All Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc.. religious freedom. It also included a bill of rights similar to but more comprehensive than that in the US.


*(COMMENT)*

I believe the Palestinian Parliament and the Basic Law are just pieces of paper that are largely compromised.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian Groups (especially Fatah) will ignore, alter or amend them as necessary to shut their objectives.

Mahmoud Abbas was elected to office in 8 May 2005.  It is not 2020.   How many terms is that?  Dictators tend to manipulate the law such that they can claim some legitimacy.  National Emergency is one of the means.



P F Tinmore said:


> Read the Mandate document. Palestine was called a country many times. Israeli bullshit propaganda won't mention that.


*(COMMENT)*
 When the Mandate mentions "country" it is talking about the Government of Palestine.  And the Hostile Arab Palestinians rejected all the offers of participation in the development of self-governing Institutions.

I suggest you read these carefully.

ITEM #1 (February 1948) an Excerpt.

MEMORANDUM “A”
LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​
Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the _de facto_ or the _de jure_ Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

ITEM #2




You have seen this all before.  But you ignore it, Why?  Because it does not conform to your agenda.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I believe the Palestinian Parliament and the Basic Law are just pieces of paper that are largely compromised. The Hostile Arab Palestinian Groups (especially Fatah) will ignore, alter or amend them as necessary to shut their objectives.


Again, interesting.

In March of 2007 the Palestinians created the model government in the ME. Armed with their constitution they created a government that included Hamas, Fatah, and smaller parties, It included Christians and women. All was approved by the PLC as the constitution required.

The US and Israel did not like that the Palestinian Authority had a Hamas PM. The US gave Fatah/Abbas $86m to overthrow the PA and install Fatah back in power. Remember that Fatah lost the elections to Hamas in 2006.

This coup was a success in the West Bank but failed in Gaza causing the split between the West Bank and Gaza. The US installed Fatah as the government in the Wast Bank.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,


P F Tinmore said:


> In March of 2007 the Palestinians created the model government in the ME.


*(COMMENT)*
.
While this sounds impressive, it certain would be difficult to demonstrate.  Any nation can write these lofty documents.  The trick is to actually live by the concepts and make it work.  The Ramallah Government and Gaza Government have a level of governance that is so bad that they did not even make to the *World Corruption Perception Index* (W-CPI).  

The US is not a perfect govenment.   In the G-20, America is somewhere in the middle.  Having said that, the Congress has screwed-up so much that Chile and Bhutan fair better on the index ranking.  Washington is really pitiful.

Having those lofty documents mean nothing if the government cannot live by them and still provide the infrastructure to sustain the nation.  And this is where the Ramallah Government and Gaza Government fall down.
.


P F Tinmore said:


> The US and Israel did not like that the Palestinian Authority had a Hamas PM. The US gave Fatah/Abbas $86m to overthrow the PA and install Fatah back in power. Remember that Fatah lost the elections to Hamas in 2006.
> 
> This coup was a success in the West Bank but failed in Gaza causing the split between the West Bank and Gaza. The US installed Fatah as the government in the Wast Bank.


*(COMMENT)*
.
In the first years of the 21st Century, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) were not pillars within the International Community.  The PLO was marginally better and certainly more cooperative than HAMAS.  Today, much of the International Community still consider the actions of HAMAS to be acts of terrorism.  It is not uncommon to hear HAMAS Leaders make outrageous statement that do nothing but advocate for national, racial, and religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence.




Even today, most terrorism, in the region, is politically motivated disgruntled factions that are intellectually incapable of following the civilized dispute resolution processes.  But the hidden agenda is much greater than that.  The Palestinian Factions find it more profitable to incite a continuation of the conflict, rather than adopt a reasonable conflict resolution process.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> While this sounds impressive, it certain would be difficult to demonstrate. Any nation can write these lofty documents. The trick is to actually live by the concepts and make it work. The Ramallah Government and Gaza Government have a level of governance that is so bad that they did not even make to the *World Corruption Perception Index* (W-CPI).


As you know, or should know, the US installs/props up dictators and despots all over the world. Palestine is no different. The government is rife with corruption. But it is not the Palestinian's government. It is a foreign imposed Bantustan government.

Starts@ 34:00

Injecting Hamas into the PA was a direct threat to the Bantustan system. Hamas would not play ball like Fatah. That is why Hamas won the elections.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews._
_SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> The government is rife with corruption. But it is not the Palestinian's government. It is a foreign imposed Bantustan government.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians "allow" the Ramallah and Gaza Governments to exist.  Each of these two governments is protected by Arab Palestinians (its own population).  If the Palestinians (as a people) wanted to change the face of the government, all they have to do is decide that is what they want and invoke change.  The only thing stopping change is the people themselves.  They don't want change enough to make the effort.

This argument that the US props up the Ramallah Government is a political apparition.  There is not a single US military element in the West Bank.  The money, the power, the weapons are all in the hands of the Arab Palestinians.  Again, they have had the tools for change the entire time.  In fact, for two decades (1948-1967), the Arab Palestinians had the Arab League on their side (an external military force).  There has been no foreign troops to set foot in Israel to participate in military operations opposing Arab Palestinian violence. 

Even after the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip (2005), the Arab Palestinians continued the armed struggle for more than 15 years (the entire tenure of the Mahmoud Abbas Regime).  The Arab Palestinians continue to pursue the organized use of subversion and violence in an attempt to seize and nullify, or challenge political control of Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> Injecting Hamas into the PA was a direct threat to the Bantustan system. Hamas would not play ball like Fatah. That is why Hamas won the elections.


*(COMMENT)*

HAMAS is a creation of the Arab Palestinians (a self inflicted political trauma).  The Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (“Islamic Resistance Movement”)(AKA: HAMAS) was a splinter group out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  HAMAS was founded by an Arab Palestinian Spiritual Leader (Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) who wanted to insure the growth of Islam as the Arab Palestinians grew in strength.  Originally Sheikh Yassin opposed the use of terrorism (a weapon of the weak) as the means to the end.  However, the militant undercurrent within HAMAS change that view. The Sheikh did advocate "armed struggle" as a tool of HAMAS.  The Sheikh endorsed the passage in the Covenant that professes:  "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

The continuation of the conflict was spurred-on by Arab Palestinians like Sheikh Yassin; but he was by no means the only prominent character and advocate in personal incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence.

Yes, it can be said that the Israelis did, from time to time, aggravate the climate for conflict, it was the Arab Palestinian that wallows in the mud.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Even after the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip (2005), the Arab Palestinians continued the armed struggle for more than 15 years


What was the March of Return all about?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews._
> _SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians "allow" the Ramallah and Gaza Governments to exist.  Each of these two governments is protected by Arab Palestinians (its own population).  If the Palestinians (as a people) wanted to change the face of the government, all they have to do is decide that is what they want and invoke change.  The only thing stopping change is the people themselves.  They don't want change enough to make the effort.
> 
> This argument that the US props up the Ramallah Government is a political apparition.  There is not a single US military element in the West Bank.  The money, the power, the weapons are all in the hands of the Arab Palestinians.  Again, they have had the tools for change the entire time.  In fact, for two decades (1948-1967), the Arab Palestinians had the Arab League on their side (an external military force).  There has been no foreign troops to set foot in Israel to participate in military operations opposing Arab Palestinian violence.
> 
> Even after the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip (2005), the Arab Palestinians continued the armed struggle for more than 15 years (the entire tenure of the Mahmoud Abbas Regime).  The Arab Palestinians continue to pursue the organized use of subversion and violence in an attempt to seize and nullify, or challenge political control of Israel.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> HAMAS is a creation of the Arab Palestinians (a self inflicted political trauma).  The Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (“Islamic Resistance Movement”)(AKA: HAMAS) was a splinter group out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  HAMAS was founded by an Arab Palestinian Spiritual Leader (Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) who wanted to insure the growth of Islam as the Arab Palestinians grew in strength.  Originally Sheikh Yassin opposed the use of terrorism (a weapon of the weak) as the means to the end.  However, the militant undercurrent within HAMAS change that view. The Sheikh did advocate "armed struggle" as a tool of HAMAS.  The Sheikh endorsed the passage in the Covenant that professes:  "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
> 
> The continuation of the conflict was spurred-on by Arab Palestinians like Sheikh Yassin; but he was by no means the only prominent character and advocate in personal incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence.
> 
> Yes, it can be said that the Israelis did, from time to time, aggravate the climate for conflict, it was the Arab Palestinian that wallows in the mud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You need to brush up on weaponized money.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> What was the March of Return all about?


*(COMMENT)*
.
Well, this is was NOT about a "RIGHT" to Return (RoR).  There is no universal RoR (*see Posting #282*).  Each case must be evaluated on its own merit.

The the "Great March" for the RoR is a propaganda effort to place apolitical spotlight for the media on the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims:

◈  That (_as the HoAP say: is inshrined_) in the *UN Resolution A/RES/194 (III)* (Dec 1948) the RoR.​​✦  refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace​​※→ The Refugees specifically stated:​
(b) 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. *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
(f) The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country. *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
g) The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.   *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. (HAMAS Covenant 1988)
•  21.  Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).  (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
• 22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them. (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
• 23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah. (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
The Great March was a Major Media Event which, in itself, was violation of the* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) of Israel.

_*※→  Article 12. CCPR*_​
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. ​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. ​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions *except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. *​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​ 
_*※→  Article 20 CCPR*_​​1. Any *propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.* ​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​The Great March Media Event was an attempt to promote the use of force to* violate of Israeli territorial integrity or political independence* by a largely *civilian mob providing cover for members of HAMAS*.  HAMAS used this civilian mob as a shield to launch incendiary devices.   

*1997 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST CONVENTION*
3.  "Explosive or other lethal device" means:​(a)  An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or​
There is no way that I have the eloquence f a legal scholar to do justice in describing all the prohibitions that HAMAS was able to pull off without the International Community raising an eyebrow.  But the refugees that the March would apply to is now 73 years of age.  The Fact Book for Gaza shows that in 2020 it was estimated that *65 years and over: *2.68% of the population and that is approximately 52 thousand (male 27,248 / female 24,191).  And they are not old enough be a refugee of the 1948 War for Independence.

Then there is the issue of the HoAP trying to use the event to nullify Israels Right to Self-Determination leading to the establishment of self rule and independence.

The answer to your simple little question is exceptionfllycomplex on many different political planes.  But believe me when I say, that without regard to the name (The Great March for the RoR), it is not about the RoR.  The Event is all about the increasing the level of Humanitarian support and the increase in donor nation contribution that enhance the personal wealth of certain leaders of HAMAS and associates.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What was the March of Return all about?


It was about Hamas bussing children to a war zone they created with the presumption that children injured or killed in such a war zone could be used for propaganda purposes.

Nature has pre-programmed humans and animals alike with a survival instinct and an instinct to protect the young. It's a remarkable thing that pallys have overridden this with a willingness to specifically put their children in harms way.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Well, this is was NOT about a "RIGHT" to Return (RoR).  There is no universal RoR (*see Posting #282*).  Each case must be evaluated on its own merit.
> 
> The the "Great March" for the RoR is a propaganda effort to place apolitical spotlight for the media on the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims:
> 
> ◈  That (_as the HoAP say: is inshrined_) in the *UN Resolution A/RES/194 (III)* (Dec 1948) the RoR.​​✦  refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace​​※→ The Refugees specifically stated:​
> (b) 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. *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
> (f) The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country. *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
> g) The Arabs of Palestine 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. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.   *(A/AC.21/10*) (1948)
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. (HAMAS Covenant 1988)
> •  21.  Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).  (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
> • 22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them. (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
> • 23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah. (*HAMAS General Principles and Policies*) (2017)
> The Great March was a Major Media Event which, in itself, was violation of the* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) of Israel.
> 
> _*※→  Article 12. CCPR*_​
> 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. ​2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. ​3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions *except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. *​4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​
> _*※→  Article 20 CCPR*_​​1. Any *propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.* ​2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​The Great March Media Event was an attempt to promote the use of force to* violate of Israeli territorial integrity or political independence* by a largely *civilian mob providing cover for members of HAMAS*.  HAMAS used this civilian mob as a shield to launch incendiary devices.
> 
> *1997 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST CONVENTION*
> 3.  "Explosive or other lethal device" means:​(a)  An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or​
> There is no way that I have the eloquence f a legal scholar to do justice in describing all the prohibitions that HAMAS was able to pull off without the International Community raising an eyebrow.  But the refugees that the March would apply to is now 73 years of age.  The Fact Book for Gaza shows that in 2020 it was estimated that *65 years and over: *2.68% of the population and that is approximately 52 thousand (male 27,248 / female 24,191).  And they are not old enough be a refugee of the 1948 War for Independence.
> 
> Then there is the issue of the HoAP trying to use the event to nullify Israels Right to Self-Determination leading to the establishment of self rule and independence.
> 
> The answer to your simple little question is exceptionfllycomplex on many different political planes.  But believe me when I say, that without regard to the name (The Great March for the RoR), it is not about the RoR.  The Event is all about the increasing the level of Humanitarian support and the increase in donor nation contribution that enhance the personal wealth of certain leaders of HAMAS and associates.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


So, you believe that taking land by force is legal?

Do you have a link for that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> It was about Hamas bussing children to a war zone they created with the presumption that children injured or killed in such a war zone could be used for propaganda purposes.
> 
> Nature has pre-programmed humans and animals alike with a survival instinct and an instinct to protect the young. It's a remarkable thing that pallys have overridden this with a willingness to specifically put their children in harms way.


What harm? It was an unarmed protest.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_

You are grasping for anything to justify the continuation of conflict for over 70 years.  No matter what your original cause for action was, you cannot justify your aggravated acts of violence..



P F Tinmore said:


> So, you believe that taking land by force is legal?


*(COMMENT)*
.
No one said that.  Although subsequent to the Israeli action, the real nature f the Arab Palestinian was revealed.
'


P F Tinmore said:


> What harm? It was an unarmed protest.


*(COMMENT)*
.
A mob of 30 thousand people is not an unarmed threat.  HAMAS, in their usual cowardly fashion, use civilians as a screen and shield t threaten the integrity of the border.  Then, when that did not work/, you used civilians to launch incendiary devices.
.
*( ∑ )*
.
No one said the transition would be easy.  No one said the transition would be perfect.  But what really set the character to the establishment of the State of Israel is found in how the Arab Palestinians setup a system that has tainted children for over three generations to hate Jews.  It shows the true colors in the suicide bombing phase, and the martyr generation for people like Dalal al-Maghribi who killed unarmed men, women and children. The Hostile Arab Palestinian adopted a policy of "no honest negotiation."  

The threat posed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian is real.  And the risk is real.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What harm? It was an unarmed protest.



Except for the arms brought by the Islamic terrorists.

Were you disappointed children weren't hurt? Thats why your heroes bussed them in.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> You are grasping for anything to justify the continuation of conflict for over 70 years.  No matter what your original cause for action was, you cannot justify your aggravated acts of violence..
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> No one said that.  Although subsequent to the Israeli action, the real nature f the Arab Palestinian was revealed.
> '
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> A mob of 30 thousand people is not an unarmed threat.  HAMAS, in their usual cowardly fashion, use civilians as a screen and shield t threaten the integrity of the border.  Then, when that did not work/, you used civilians to launch incendiary devices.
> .
> *( ∑ )*
> .
> No one said the transition would be easy.  No one said the transition would be perfect.  But what really set the character to the establishment of the State of Israel is found in how the Arab Palestinians setup a system that has tainted children for over three generations to hate Jews.  It shows the true colors in the suicide bombing phase, and the martyr generation for people like Dalal al-Maghribi who killed unarmed men, women and children. The Hostile Arab Palestinian adopted a policy of "no honest negotiation."
> 
> The threat posed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian is real.  And the risk is real.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


So, you believe that taking land by force is legal?

You are ducking me question.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> So, you believe that taking land by force is legal?
> 
> You are ducking me question.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not answer the question because the territory was not taken by force.

This is another phony leg that the Hostile Arab Palestinians like to rest upon.

Consider:

*Customary and International Humanitarian Law.*​*Rule 24.* Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.​
Relative to the Law about the use of force, _→ _what it actually says is:
​


			
				Article 2(4) UN Charter said:
			
		

> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.




*(IF-THEN #1)   IF*, as you claim, Palestine had borders from 1924,* THEN* it is a domestic issue and NOT a violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

*(IF-THEN #2)   IF*, you claim the use of force by Israel against the Palestinians,* THEN* you are claiming that Israel is one State Party and Palestine is another State Party, thus the use of the Arab League Forces is in violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel."

You cannot have it both ways.
*(THE ENTANGLED CLAIM)*

However... it is a matter of record that "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed." (*Memorandum "A") to A/AC.21/UK/42*)  The Arab Palestinians had not self-governing institution in 1948.    In fact, until 1967, the entirety of the territory in dispute was under the control and leadership of either Israel or an Arab League party.  SO_!_ _→_  It was never an act of one "State" (Israel) against the a Palestinian State, Israel but forces of the Arab League.

Further, soon after the Armistice came into force, the Gaza Strip came under an Egyptian Military Governorship, and the West Bank was Annexed by Jordan.  So where are the Palestinians all this and what legitimacy do they have?

Even by 1988, when Jordan cut all ties with all holdings west of the Jordan River, the Arab Palestinians did not have a functioning government of the self-governing institutions to complete a "state." (*Convention on Rights and Duties of a State*)

*( ≈ Ω )*

II did not answer your question directly because it veered away from the central issues AND because I did not want to get it entangled with the other important issue.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *(IF-THEN #1) IF*, as you claim, Palestine had borders from 1924,* THEN* it is a domestic issue and NOT a violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."


Palestine was attacked by foreign forces and lost 78% of its territory at the point of a gun.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> thus the use of the Arab League Forces is in violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel."


For one, no Arab country entered Israel.

For another, the 1948 war and the Nakba were two separate events.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Yes, link.
> 
> You should be able to provide a link identifying sovereign territory maintained by the Pallys (the Arabs-Moslems who, as you know, occupied lands controlled by the Ottoman Turks.
> 
> As we know, no such territory soverjgn to the Arab-Moslem occupiers existed.
> 
> Link?


Bensouda posited that though they are not able to exercise their right to self-determination, *Palestinians are the rightful sovereigns *of the West Bank and Gaza, which is under Israeli occupation.









						Could ICC try Palestinians while Israel gets away with murder?
					

Human Rights Watch frames armed resistance as "war crimes."




					electronicintifada.net
				




All of Palestine before the Israeli conquest.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Deception
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_




P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was attacked by foreign forces and lost 78% of its territory at the point of a gun.


*(QUESTION)*

What foreign forces?

When?

Basic Interrogatives.



P F Tinmore said:


> For one, no Arab country entered Israel.
> 
> For another, the 1948 war and the Nakba were two separate events.


*(REFERENCE)*


November 29, 1947--General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions,* in favor of the Partition Plan.*

*(QUESTION)*

I know you are imposing some kind of manipulative question, subject to many interpretations.

P:  I was given the impression that  Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was also know as “The Nakba.”​Q:  Please explain, what is the difference between the 1948 War and The Nakba?​
I believe that you are trying to separate the displacement of Arab Palestines (Nakba) from the from the 1948 Conflict (War for Independence).  The Arab Palestinians were displace from one part of the trusteeship to another part.   The Nakba was the initial catalyst for the conflict which was already decided upon by the Arab League.  In the cable from Jordan to the UN, the King said:   "we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin."   

This was much the same the India-Pakistan Partition done also done in the 1946-48 timeframe (Hindu-Muslim divide).

This was an accepted practice at the time in order to facilitate self-government to both Hindu and Muslims.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P: I was given the impression that Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was also know as “The Nakba.”


You were probably also given the impression that:

Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
The Arabs lost that war.
Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.
All not true.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You were probably also given the impression that:
> 
> Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
> The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
> The Arabs lost that war.
> Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.
> All not true.


....except in the alternate reality of the Arabs-Moslems who want to rewrite history. 

BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?

All those wars including 1948 and later waged and lost by the Arabs-Moslems are a lasting humiliation, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Q: Please explain, what is the difference between the 1948 War and The Nakba?


Sure.

The 1948 war began on May 15, 1948 when five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. The players were the Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt.

The fighting ended in less than a year when a UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.
-----------------
The Nakba began in December of 1947 when Zionist forces attack Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes. The players are the Zionist/Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians. That conflict has never ended. It continues to today.
------------------
So, we have two different times, two different players, two different goals, and two different results.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> ....except in the alternate reality of the Arabs-Moslems who want to rewrite history.
> 
> BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?
> 
> All those wars including 1948 and later waged and lost by the Arabs-Moslems are a lasting humiliation, right?





Hollie said:


> BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?


Indeed, that is why item 4 is not true.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, that is why item 4 is not true.


Indeed, the Arab-Moslem humiliation of lost wars of aggression, political, economic and social failures will result in the lawless territorial occupation we see as the two competing islamic terrorist franchises struggle for power.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settler Colonialism in Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nadia Hijab on Moving Beyond Statehood Debates and on to How We Get There​


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews._
_SUBTOPIC: A Compounded Deception
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> You were probably also given the impression that:
> 
> Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
> The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
> The Arabs lost that war.
> Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.
> All not true.


*(COMMENT)*
.
◈   Israel appears to hold a deep concern that a workable solution to the conflict has yet to be achieved.​​◈   Israel is concerned that the Ramallah and Gaza Governments are intentionally avoiding any coherent disputed resolution process.​​◈   Israel is very concerned that both the Ramallah and Gaza Government have chosen Armed Struggle and Violence - that resistance and jihad will remain a legitimate right of the Arab Palestinian - over and above good faith negotiations, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or international judicial settlement.​​◈   Yes, the entire West Bank and Jerusalem ("beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181") became a protectorate of the Israelis after the Jordanian Disengagement of 1988.  This was later solidified in the Peace Treaty of 1994 (Article III and Annex I).​
Rarely does a nation ever truly win or lose a "war."  If combat forces engaged, and casualties were incurred, there was a cost.  Clearly, the Arab Palestinians did not win, lose, or liberate any territory unless you count Area "A" and some control over Area "B."  But that was because the PLO under Yasser Arafat made some breakthroughs and successes that the Ramallah and Gaza Governments have not been able to duplicate.

You indicate that the statement:  "Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181" is NOT true.  This is a trick question.  Manipulation for propaganda purposes.  I would say the syntax is fouled-up.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You indicate that the statement: "Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181" is NOT true. This is a trick question. Manipulation for propaganda purposes. I would say the syntax is fouled-up.


There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement

It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement
> 
> It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
> Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war


Is that was the Imam teaches during Friday prayers at your madrassah?


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Compounded Deception
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement
> 
> It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
> Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war


*(COMMENT)*
.
(Q 1)  A/RES/181(II) was NOT an international "grant" or an after-action "bequest."  A/RES/181(II) was non-binding on any member.  It was a recommendation.  The Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee had the options to:

✪. Accept opportunities​​✪. Reject options​​✪. Implement parts and ignore or discard the remainder.​​It turns out that the Jewish/Israeli Leadership made better choices, pursued fruitful options, and generally followed a more successful set of paths.  The Jewish Agency made some very productive turns at building self-governing institutions.  The Arab Higher Committee rejected every invitation to follow suit.  The Jewish Agency/Israeli Government developed a greater return on their investments (time and energies).

◈  The General Assembly may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.​​◈  The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations.​
◈  But the General Assembly cannot "demand or require to do anything.  The General Assembly may discuss almost any topic or request information on any issue (with a few exceptions).  The General Assembly is not supposed to discuss any topic or take any action that might become a danger to peace and security.  I cannot think of an exception that has not already been broken concerning the Question of Palestine.​
(Q 2)  Well, as I said on several occasions.  In the latter part of the 20th Century through the current two decades of the 21st Century, the terms "wins and losses" in the context in relationship to International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIAC) are obsolete terms.  To be more accurate terms are "victory" (decisive or indecisive) - "inconclusive" - "defeats" (Pyrrhus victories) which become more descriptive. Israel did not, _per se_, win any territory, but they did gain territory largely through serious mistakes made by the Arab Palestinians and the Jordanians - which the Israels were able to capitalize on.

_( ∑ )_

Israel came into existence through "SELF-DETERMINATION."  

The Israelis made a series of good investments (Time and  Energy) and followed some effective recommendations.  And ultimately have become the most developed and productive nation in the Middle East North African Region.  Whereas the Leadership of the Arab Palestinians sunk faster than a ship's anchor.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> (Q 1) A/RES/181(II) was NOT an international "grant" or an after-action "bequest." A/RES/181(II) was non-binding on any member. It was a recommendation. The Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee had the options to:


Holy obfuscation, Batman!

You posted all of that and missed the points in my post.
---------------------
Think of Resolution 181 as a proposed treaty. If both sides had signed it, both sides would be obligated to follow the tenets of 181. Both side did not sign it so all we have is a worthless piece of paper.

The poison pill was that the Palestinians would cede half of their territory to colonial settlers. The Palestinians, like anyone else in the world, rejected that "opportunity."


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Compounded Deception
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_

Why should I think if A/RES/181(II) as a "proposed" Treaty?



P F Tinmore said:


> Holy obfuscation, Batman!
> 
> You posted all of that and missed the points in my post.
> ---------------------
> Think of Resolution 181 as a proposed treaty. If both sides had signed it, both sides would be obligated to follow the tenets of 181. Both side did not sign it so all we have is a worthless piece of paper.
> 
> The poison pill was that the Palestinians would cede half of their territory to colonial settlers. The Palestinians, like anyone else in the world, rejected that "opportunity."


*(COMMENT)*
.
The  United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was an Investigative Committee.  Itwas never intended to create any such political or diplomatic document that could be construed as something even remotely similar to a Treaty.

4.    The Special Committee shall conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful, receive and examine written or oral testimony, whichever it may consider appropriate in each case, from the mandatory Power, from representatives of the population of Palestine, from Governments and from such organizations and individuals as it may deem necessary;​​  5.    The Special Committee shall give most careful consideration to the religious interests in Palestine of Islam, Judaism and Christianity;​​  6.    The Special Committee shall prepare a report to the General Assembly and shall submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine;​​And remember.  The Arab Palestinians were under a delusion that the Territory that had been subject to the Mandate wass promised to them.  It was not their country.  It could have been choped up into three pieces if the Allied Powers thought it necessary.

OH wait.  The Allied Powers ddid leave  the trustee commiittee a Mandate territory that was Jewish, one Hashemite, and the third rejected by the Arab Higher Committee.

But the Recommendation A/RES/181 (II) was never intended to be an obligation in any fashion.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> But the Recommendation A/RES/181 (II) was never intended to be an obligation in any fashion.


So they could both sign it then they could both ignore it like it didn't happen?


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Obligation that wasn't there.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_

I think you got it; or, are getting there.



P F Tinmore said:


> So they could both sign it then they could both ignore it like it didn't happen?


*(COMMENT)*
.
They don't sign it at all.  The recommendation is not a requirement or application.  

They either follow the recommendation, reject the recommendation, or choose the pieces they want to implement.  And they can do that together or individually.  They can coordinate or proceed at their own pace.

But the only requirement are those that pertain to membership.  And even those are flexible.  There are no obligations and the path taken does not affect the civil and political rights of the day; including the Right to Self-Determination.  But neither are they to interfere with the Rights of the other.

The A/RES/181 (II) represents the consensus of the Membership of the day that had an interest in the decision.  Those that had no interest simply abstain.  
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Obligation that wasn't there.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> I think you got it; or, are getting there.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> They don't sign it at all.  The recommendation is not a requirement or application.
> 
> They either follow the recommendation, reject the recommendation, or choose the pieces they want to implement.  And they can do that together or individually.  They can coordinate or proceed at their own pace.
> 
> But the only requirement are those that pertain to membership.  And even those are flexible.  There are no obligations and the path taken does not affect the civil and political rights of the day; including the Right to Self-Determination.  But neither are they to interfere with the Rights of the other.
> 
> The A/RES/181 (II) represents the consensus of the Membership of the day that had an interest in the decision.  Those that had no interest simply abstain.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Nice word salad.

People can ignore signed contracts?


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_

I am not a lawyer and I am not practicing law.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice word salad.
> 
> People can ignore signed contracts?


*(COMMENT)*
.
There are*6 Essential Elements Of A Contract and A/RES/181 (II) *simply does not meet that criterion.

The Offer. A contract begins when the other party extends an offer. ...
Acceptance. Must of us know that a contract refers to the unconditional agreement to the terms of an offer. ...
Consideration. Consideration refers to the act of exchanging something of value. ...
Legal Capacity. ...
Meeting of The Minds. ...
Legal elements of a contract. ...
Neither the Jewish nor the Arabs made either an offer or an acceptance.  The Arab Palestinian always rejected any aspect of self-governance.

There is a condition.  You must have a benefit for a benefit between the two parties (Arab and Israeli).   Who offered what to whom?  Was it theirs to offer?

Under Article 2 & 6, the two "entities in 1947 and prior to the outbreak of hostilities" the *Vienna Convention for the Law of Treaties* (and agreement - “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law).  The rule is every STATE has the capacity to enter into a treaty.  The UN Trusteeship had the authority, the two entities (Jewish and Arab) did not.

I don't know if the Arabs and Jewish ever had a meeting of the minds with reasonably clear comprehension and mutual agreement of all obligations relative to A/RES/181 (II).

There is simply no intent under A/RES/181 (II) to be a contract.  Certainly not by the trusteeship.
*( ? )*

I'm trying to understand where you might have picked up this idea that there was a contractual element in the mix.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> I am not a lawyer and I am not practicing law.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> There are*6 Essential Elements Of A Contract and A/RES/181 (II) *simply does not meet that criterion.
> 
> The Offer. A contract begins when the other party extends an offer. ...
> Acceptance. Must of us know that a contract refers to the unconditional agreement to the terms of an offer. ...
> Consideration. Consideration refers to the act of exchanging something of value. ...
> Legal Capacity. ...
> Meeting of The Minds. ...
> Legal elements of a contract. ...
> Neither the Jewish nor the Arabs made either an offer or an acceptance.  The Arab Palestinian always rejected any aspect of self-governance.
> 
> There is a condition.  You must have a benefit for a benefit between the two parties (Arab and Israeli).   Who offered what to whom?  Was it theirs to offer?
> 
> Under Article 2 & 6, the two "entities in 1947 and prior to the outbreak of hostilities" the *Vienna Convention for the Law of Treaties* (and agreement - “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law).  The rule is every STATE has the capacity to enter into a treaty.  The UN Trusteeship had the authority, the two entities (Jewish and Arab) did not.
> 
> I don't know if the Arabs and Jewish ever had a meeting of the minds with reasonably clear comprehension and mutual agreement of all obligations relative to A/RES/181 (II).
> 
> There is simply no intent under A/RES/181 (II) to be a contract.  Certainly not by the trusteeship.
> *( ? )*
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you might have picked up this idea that there was a contractual element in the mix.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Treaty, agreement, contract, call it what you want. It would have been a signed document that had obligations.

Doesn't matter. It flopped. It was a nothing anyway. No sense arguing about it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> I am not a lawyer and I am not practicing law.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> There are*6 Essential Elements Of A Contract and A/RES/181 (II) *simply does not meet that criterion.
> 
> The Offer. A contract begins when the other party extends an offer. ...
> Acceptance. Must of us know that a contract refers to the unconditional agreement to the terms of an offer. ...
> Consideration. Consideration refers to the act of exchanging something of value. ...
> Legal Capacity. ...
> Meeting of The Minds. ...
> Legal elements of a contract. ...
> Neither the Jewish nor the Arabs made either an offer or an acceptance.  The Arab Palestinian always rejected any aspect of self-governance.
> 
> There is a condition.  You must have a benefit for a benefit between the two parties (Arab and Israeli).   Who offered what to whom?  Was it theirs to offer?
> 
> Under Article 2 & 6, the two "entities in 1947 and prior to the outbreak of hostilities" the *Vienna Convention for the Law of Treaties* (and agreement - “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law).  The rule is every STATE has the capacity to enter into a treaty.  The UN Trusteeship had the authority, the two entities (Jewish and Arab) did not.
> 
> I don't know if the Arabs and Jewish ever had a meeting of the minds with reasonably clear comprehension and mutual agreement of all obligations relative to A/RES/181 (II).
> 
> There is simply no intent under A/RES/181 (II) to be a contract.  Certainly not by the trusteeship.
> *( ? )*
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you might have picked up this idea that there was a contractual element in the mix.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Now that you have deflected off my post, how about addressing it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel Lobby: What Everyone Needs to Know - Walter L. Hixson​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Israel Lobby: What Everyone Needs to Know - Walter L. Hixson​



How could he forget the space lasers?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is the Israel lobby losing its power?​


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_


P F Tinmore said:


> The Israel Lobby: What Everyone Needs to Know - Walter L. Hixson​


*(COMMENT)*
.
This is just more "sour grapes" on the part of the Arab Palestinians. Professor Hixson is (for some unknown reason to me) jumping on the standard  'apartheid, injustice, and suppressor of human rights' anti-Israel bandwagon _→ _as if he is NOT the advocate for a foreign influence and act on behalf and in concert with multiple designated terrorist organization _→_ just the very same advocate and suppressor of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).  I do not say this to smear the man himself, but to counter the impression in his introduction before his appearance in the news blog.  

I could go on about what every American Should Know about these anti-American _→_ anti-Israeli accusations, but it would not change the mind of the anti-Israel Lobby and the fallacy as he makes an irrelevant attack on Israel.   Professor Hixson undermines his own argument by not explaining how:

◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they openly commit offenses which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israelis),  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they seriously damage the property or the installations used by the Israelis.  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they commit serious acts of sabotage against the installations of the Occupying Power or intentional offenses which caused the death of one or more persons.  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they Location of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Rocket Launch sites inside Densely Populated Areas so as to limit the retaliatory strike.  Then if citizens of the densely populated ate get killed or injured, they can run to the media and say what criminals the Israelis are.​(*See IHL Rule #23*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they “utilizing the presence of a civilian render HoAP Activities, Palestinian Islamic Jihad forces immune from Israeli Defense Force countermeasures and operations. (*See IHL Rule #97*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL that the Protected Person (Arab Palestinians) when they utilize the presence of civilians (in the thousand) to shield HoAP attempts to penetrate the border and launch incendiary devices into Israel. (*See IHL Rule #97*)​(*See *_*1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*_)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when. the HoAP fail to mention that what they call Colonial Settler sites in 'the West Bank, was actually approved and agreed to by the Arab Palestinians themselves.  (See: (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • *ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C"* • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"*) *_→_ Then the Arab Palestinians run to anyone who will listen, and cry on their shoulder about how unlawful it is.  Which in turn violates the international citation that prohibits propaganda for war.  (See Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when. the HoAP fails to mention that violating the citation that bars advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited by law.  (See Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)​
I could go on and on about what the HoAP has done to advance the conflict, as opposed to exercising conflict resolution practices. After all, it is of both HAMAS and Fatah that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  As for the magnitude and size of the pro-Jewish advocate organizations in America today, the HoAP has these backbiting bloggers and University speakers and quasi-profession rabble-rousers, that go around justifying the conflict.  The anti-Israeli and pro-Arab Palestinian right here have posted their "Jane Fonda" like activities on the net.  

I know, you know, that their will be an opposing point of view.  If there is an injustice, then it is incumbant for people like me to speak against the anti-Israel and pro-conflict advocates that think it is all right.  We must all be vigileent for HoAP that pursues the philosophy that Arm Stuggle  -  by any means - is justified. 
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I could go on and on


Indeed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> This is just more "sour grapes" on the part of the Arab Palestinians. Professor Hixson is (for some unknown reason to me) jumping on the standard  'apartheid, injustice, and suppressor of human rights' anti-Israel bandwagon _→ _as if he is NOT the advocate for a foreign influence and act on behalf and in concert with multiple designated terrorist organization _→_ just the very same advocate and suppressor of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).  I do not say this to smear the man himself, but to counter the impression in his introduction before his appearance in the news blog.
> 
> I could go on about what every American Should Know about these anti-American _→_ anti-Israeli accusations, but it would not change the mind of the anti-Israel Lobby and the fallacy as he makes an irrelevant attack on Israel.   Professor Hixson undermines his own argument by not explaining how:
> 
> ◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they openly commit offenses which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israelis),  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they seriously damage the property or the installations used by the Israelis.  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they commit serious acts of sabotage against the installations of the Occupying Power or intentional offenses which caused the death of one or more persons.  (*See Article 68, GCIV*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they Location of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Rocket Launch sites inside Densely Populated Areas so as to limit the retaliatory strike.  Then if citizens of the densely populated ate get killed or injured, they can run to the media and say what criminals the Israelis are.​(*See IHL Rule #23*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when they “utilizing the presence of a civilian render HoAP Activities, Palestinian Islamic Jihad forces immune from Israeli Defense Force countermeasures and operations. (*See IHL Rule #97*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL that the Protected Person (Arab Palestinians) when they utilize the presence of civilians (in the thousand) to shield HoAP attempts to penetrate the border and launch incendiary devices into Israel. (*See IHL Rule #97*)​(*See *_*1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*_)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when. the HoAP fail to mention that what they call Colonial Settler sites in 'the West Bank, was actually approved and agreed to by the Arab Palestinians themselves.  (See: (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • *ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C"* • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"*) *_→_ Then the Arab Palestinians run to anyone who will listen, and cry on their shoulder about how unlawful it is.  Which in turn violates the international citation that prohibits propaganda for war.  (See Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)​​◈     How the Arab Palestinian violates IHL when. the HoAP fails to mention that violating the citation that bars advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited by law.  (See Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)​
> I could go on and on about what the HoAP has done to advance the conflict, as opposed to exercising conflict resolution practices. After all, it is of both HAMAS and Fatah that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  As for the magnitude and size of the pro-Jewish advocate organizations in America today, the HoAP has these backbiting bloggers and University speakers and quasi-profession rabble-rousers, that go around justifying the conflict.  The anti-Israeli and pro-Arab Palestinian right here have posted their "Jane Fonda" like activities on the net.
> 
> I know, you know, that their will be an opposing point of view.  If there is an injustice, then it is incumbant for people like me to speak against the anti-Israel and pro-conflict advocates that think it is all right.  We must all be vigileent for HoAP that pursues the philosophy that Arm Stuggle  -  by any means - is justified.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


All that and no mention of the Nakba.


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Model Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,_

◈    The Palestinian “Nakba” (*“catastrophe” in Arabic*) refers to the displacement of Arab Palestinians from *Mandate for Palestine* that began before the establishment of Independent Israel (1946-48).​◈    In November 1947, the United Nations accepted a Partition Plan to allocate a portion of the territory under the Mandate to the proposed Jewish State as recommended by A/RES/181 (II).  The vote (_signaled for many Hostile Arab Palestinians_ (HoAP) _the beginning of the great “catastrophe_”) and triggered an outbreak of hostilities by HoAP.​​


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed.  All that and no mention of the Nakba.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Nakba is an engagement of a "Civil War" nature, the conflict between citizens elements of the same territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.  If the Arab League had not interfered, the conflict would have been a straightforward Civil War [_a Non-International Armed Conflict_ (NIAC)].  And the displaced people would have been within the very same territory formerly under the Mandate.  But it was the external Arab League interference that altered the outcome of the Civil War.

The Civil War was a conflict between the "Arab Palestinians" (_of the territory under the Mandate_) and the "Jewish Palestinians" _(of the territory under the Mandate_).  The Arab Palestinians (_proponents of an Arab State_) wanted to prevent the Jewish Palestinians from succeeding and establishing a separate nation through self-determination.  The Arab League stepped in under the guise of saving the Arab Palestinians from being destroyed.  However, the Arab League really wanted to capture as much territory they could and keep it for themselves (_primarily Egypt and Jordan_), which they did.  The Gaza Strip became a Military Governorship of Egypt, and the West Bank fell under the protection of the Jordanians who soon Annexed the territory in 1950.

There was a mixed self-initiated refugee movement and a forced element.  However, The Jewish militias and Israeli Defense Force did not force any displaced person to cross the Jordan River.  The displaced refugees were moved to the unclaimed portion of the territory formerly under the Mandate.  This was territory that the Arab Palestinian rejected as to be Arab self-goverrning.

Of course, there is always more to the story then a thumbnail portrayal can capture.  And I'll stop here as a good place to digest the slim answer.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> But it was the external Arab League interference that altered the outcome of the Civil War.


The attack on the native population by foreign colonial settles is not a civil war


----------



## RoccoR

_RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Foreign Troops -- Native Population -- Colonialism
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  This is more manipulation by Hostile Arab Palestinians._



P F Tinmore said:


> The attack on the native population by foreign colonial settles is not a civil war


*(COMMENT)*
.
◈   Foreign Troops?  To be absolutely clear, what troops are you calling "Foreign Troops?"   The Jewish People were invited by the Allied Power to which "the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."   (*Artice 16, Section I • Territorial Clauses, Treaty of Lausanne*)​
◈   What is your definition of a "Native Population?"  I think you meant to say "Indigenous People."  Just like there is no firm definition for "Native Population" - there is no definition found in A/RES/61/295 for Declaration on the Rights.   The native inhabitants of a mandated territory had a status distinct from that of the nationality of the mandatory power.  The Conventions on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples:​​​


			
				Article 1 • Convention on Indigenous and Tribal People said:
			
		

> 1. This Convention applies to:​​(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;​​(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.​
> ​2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.​​3. The use of the term *peoples *in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under international law.​


​
​This makes me think that the Israeli cannot claim indigenous status.​​◈   What is your definition of Colonial Power?  Has the *UN Special Committee (C-24) (AKA: Special Committee on Decolonization)* on the the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (*A/RES/15/15114 XV*) identified:​​✦   What international Proceeding legally identifies Israel as a colonial Power?  Does C-24?​​✦   Identified any territory in the Middle East (including the West Bank and Jerusalem) as a *Non-Self-Governing Territory*?​​✦   IWhen the Governments of Gaza or Ramallah indicate that they have requested self-governing institutions, when did they admit they are not self-governing?​​✦   IWhen the Jordanians cut all ties with the West; what governing power remained?​.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Foreign Troops? To be absolutely clear, what troops are you calling "Foreign Troops?"


The Palestinians were attacked by recently imported colonial settlers who were funded by foreign money. They were under the command of foreigners.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ IWhen the Jordanians cut all ties with the West; what governing power remained?


The sovereignty of the Palestinian people remained.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were attacked by recently imported colonial settlers who were funded by foreign money. They were under the command of foreigners.



"Foreign troops" morphed into "colonial settlers".  

You just make this up as you go along.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _RE: __Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Foreign Troops -- Native Population -- Colonialism
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  This is more manipulation by Hostile Arab Palestinians._
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> ◈   Foreign Troops?  To be absolutely clear, what troops are you calling "Foreign Troops?"   The Jewish People were invited by the Allied Power to which "the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."   (*Artice 16, Section I • Territorial Clauses, Treaty of Lausanne*)​
> ◈   What is your definition of a "Native Population?"  I think you meant to say "Indigenous People."  Just like there is no firm definition for "Native Population" - there is no definition found in A/RES/61/295 for Declaration on the Rights.   The native inhabitants of a mandated territory had a status distinct from that of the nationality of the mandatory power.  The Conventions on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples:​​​
> ​
> ​This makes me think that the Israeli cannot claim indigenous status.​​◈   What is your definition of Colonial Power?  Has the *UN Special Committee (C-24) (AKA: Special Committee on Decolonization)* on the the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (*A/RES/15/15114 XV*) identified:​​✦   What international Proceeding legally identifies Israel as a colonial Power?  Does C-24?​​✦   Identified any territory in the Middle East (including the West Bank and Jerusalem) as a *Non-Self-Governing Territory*?​​✦   IWhen the Governments of Gaza or Ramallah indicate that they have requested self-governing institutions, when did they admit they are not self-governing?​​✦   IWhen the Jordanians cut all ties with the West; what governing power remained?​.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


WCRC: Foucs: Palestine - 6. Is Israel A Settler Colonial State?​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were attacked by recently imported colonial settlers who were funded by foreign money. They were under the command of foreigners.



This is why Arab colonies like *Najd* and *Masr*,
literally, bear names of foreign lands.

Know the country Kuffiyeh
is called after?


----------



## P F Tinmore

WCRC: Focus: Palestine - 2. Meet The Palestinian Christians​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> WCRC: Focus: Palestine - 2. Meet The Palestinian Christians​



What is your position on both Pal-Arab governments
issuing IDs that specify religion to differentiate Christians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the...​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Edward Said With Noam Chomsky, on Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peace Propaganda And The Promised Land U.S Media & the Israeli Palestinian Conflict 2004​

The usual attempt at censorship.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's war on Gaza and Jerusalem with Lara Elborno, Michael Schirtzer, Joharah Baker | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Peace Propaganda And The Promised Land U.S Media & the Israeli Palestinian Conflict 2004​
> 
> The usual attempt at censorship.



Look no further than the "pro-Palestinian" rejection
of dialogue and debate on the basis of "anti-normalization".

So much that the only meaningful discussions today are on Israeli channels inviting all sides.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the...​





P F Tinmore said:


> Edward Said With Noam Chomsky, on Palestine​



Edward Said made a career
whitewashing  Arab colonialism and
the history of worst mass enslavement...









						ELDER: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade?
					

As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:




					torontosun.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Writer Mohammed El-Kurd On Surge Of Palestinian Arrests, Evictions​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Israel is an apartheid state w/ Haidar Eid, Jeff Halper, Noura Mansour & Arie Huybregts​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 33 - A Few Radical Jews with Max from Palestine Action​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Generation That Will Return - Global Palestinian Youth Roundtable
Tune in and hear from Janna Jihad, Nerdeen Kiswani, Leanne Mohamad, Mariam Afifi & Enas Ghannam speaking on their Innate Right of Return.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  *Innate Right of Return*
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  International Human Rights Law does NOT require Israel to admit anyone that presents a threat to Israeli national security, public order, public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.  In fact it says the opposite.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Generation That Will Return - Global Palestinian Youth Roundtable
> Tune in and hear from Janna Jihad, Nerdeen Kiswani, Leanne Mohamad, Mariam Afifi & Enas Ghannam speaking on their Innate Right of Return.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Since the creation of the State of Israel and the Jewish National Home, the Arab Palestinians have had the policy,
passed on from generation to generation, that *it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews*.  The propaganda spread by the Arab Palestinians that they somehow have some special dispensation to commit serious crimes against the Jewish people or Israelis is a campaign of purposeful deception.  Similarly, pushing the idea that Israel has a War with the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip is just material to accumulate sympathy for the various acts of war the Arab Palestinians take against Israel.
​◈    "All States shall prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls."​*S/RES/2178 (2014)*​​_◈    The UN Security Council decides that Member States shall, consistent with international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, prevent and suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, and the financing of their travel and of their activities._​*S/RES/2178 (2014)*​​◈    Arab Palestinians who commit offenses that are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or the installations used by them are *subject to prosecution under the Geneva Convention*.​​◈    Arab Palestinians guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, *are subject to prosecution under the Geneva Convention*.​The threat is consistent and flows steadily from the Arab Palestinian war machine. 
​*◈    PA Mufti: Sharia’h obligates every Muslim to wage Jihad ‎against what the PA calls “the thieving Jews”‎*​​*◈    Mother of Palestinian “Martyr”: All Palestinian Mothers Should Urge Their Children to Wage Jihad.*​​*◈    Palestinian Authority Antisemitism: Jews must be fought for Allah on behalf of all humanity*​
BTW:  There is absolutely NOTHING about the claim for the nonexistent "Right of Return" that is innate.  There is nothing natural about it at all.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The usual attempt at censorship.


Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  *Innate Right of Return*
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  International Human Rights Law does NOT require Israel to admit anyone that presents a threat to Israeli national security, public order, public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.  In fact it says the opposite.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Since the creation of the State of Israel and the Jewish National Home, the Arab Palestinians have had the policy,
> passed on from generation to generation, that *it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews*.  The propaganda spread by the Arab Palestinians that they somehow have some special dispensation to commit serious crimes against the Jewish people or Israelis is a campaign of purposeful deception.  Similarly, pushing the idea that Israel has a War with the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip is just material to accumulate sympathy for the various acts of war the Arab Palestinians take against Israel.
> ​◈    "All States shall prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls."​*S/RES/2178 (2014)*​​_◈    The UN Security Council decides that Member States shall, consistent with international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, prevent and suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, and the financing of their travel and of their activities._​*S/RES/2178 (2014)*​​◈    Arab Palestinians who commit offenses that are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or the installations used by them are *subject to prosecution under the Geneva Convention*.​​◈    Arab Palestinians guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, *are subject to prosecution under the Geneva Convention*.​The threat is consistent and flows steadily from the Arab Palestinian war machine.
> ​*◈    PA Mufti: Sharia’h obligates every Muslim to wage Jihad ‎against what the PA calls “the thieving Jews”‎*​​*◈    Mother of Palestinian “Martyr”: All Palestinian Mothers Should Urge Their Children to Wage Jihad.*​​*◈    Palestinian Authority Antisemitism: Jews must be fought for Allah on behalf of all humanity*​
> BTW:  There is absolutely NOTHING about the claim for the nonexistent "Right of Return" that is innate.  There is nothing natural about it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Indeed, it is a national liberation struggle.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Interconnected Struggle: Palestine & The World
Tune in and hear from Tara Houska, Mark Ayyash, Ariel Gold, Rebecca Miles & Kei Pritsker, speaking on the ever important Palestinian Right of Return and how it’s interconnected to a wider global intersectional struggle.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
					

Briefing by Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.




					media.un.org


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it is a national liberation struggle.



How do you liberate something that was never independent?






Someone whose idea of liberty is mere submission
to the moon sight in the foreign land
of the imperialist invaders?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Generation That Will Return - Global Palestinian Youth Roundtable
> Tune in and hear from Janna Jihad, Nerdeen Kiswani, Leanne Mohamad, Mariam Afifi & Enas Ghannam speaking on their Innate Right of Return.



Posting from where?

Don't fool yourselves,
sipping Vodka in 'the great satan',
is appealing more than suicide vests for raisins...


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Liberation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

*BLUF*:   Any Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) can fight a "war of liberation." Any HoAP can copy the words and phrases from other conflicts and twist them to fit the situation in Palestine.  But in the theft of the terminology, do they understand what message they convey?
​
​
​


			
				Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *national liberation movements* Movements of liberation attempting to seize control of particular territory have, strictly, no inherent status in international law.  However, they may be, and have been, accorded aspects of status. Thus, it is said that there has evolved in practice recognition of liberation movements other than recognition of them as a government.  Indeed, it has been said that ‘[w]ith the development of the law relating to non-self-governing territories and the principle of self-determination, some … national liberation movements … may be in the process of acquiring the status of a subject of international Law.
> *SOURCE*:   Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed.  Copyright 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016.  pp401​​



​​


			
				Dictionary of Politics said:
			
		

> Various groups were created to try, in their different ways, either through political negotiation or through terrorist tactics, to find a solution. The two most important were the Fatah organization (the Palestine National Liberation Movement), founded in 1957, and the PLO itself, founded in 1964. Fatah, as a militant terrorist organization, insisted on violent means, especially through trying to make alliances with the left-wing Muslim co-religionists in Lebanon against the richer urban Christians.
> *SOURCE*:  Routledge Dictionary of Politics 3 ed. by David Robertson, © 2004 Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001. pp 376​



​​


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it is a national liberation struggle.





rylah said:


> How do you liberate something that was never independent?


*(COMMENT)*
.
With so many controversies in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region, there are multiple facets in addressing the issues.  The two most common aspects are the legal/quasi-legal Rule of Law (RoL) and then the Political/Military (POLMIL) approach which is on a foundation that is fraught with outcomes having mand hidden agendas and latent but existing → yet not fully developed or manifest → as a platform and where the complete truth is never really told.

Our friend "rylah" scored a bulls-eye when he uncovered the serious question on the issue of liberation.  Since the creation of Committee 24 (C-24)(the _*Special Committee on Decolonization*_), nothing in the immediate proximity of the Arab -Israeli Conflict was ever considered "non-Self-Governing (_the_ _Non-Self-Governing Territories __are defined as "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government__"_).

The disputed territories have, at one time or another, been subject to self-governing institutions.  It is just that the Arab Palestinian people lost control of it in favor of the various terrorist groups.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Liberation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:   Any Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) can fight a "war of liberation." Any HoAP can copy the words and phrases from other conflicts and twist them to fit the situation in Palestine.  But in the theft of the terminology, do they understand what message they convey?
> ​
> ​
> ​
> 
> ​​
> 
> ​​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> With so many controversies in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region, there are multiple facets in addressing the issues.  The two most common aspects are the legal/quasi-legal Rule of Law (RoL) and then the Political/Military (POLMIL) approach which is on a foundation that is fraught with outcomes having mand hidden agendas and latent but existing → yet not fully developed or manifest → as a platform and where the complete truth is never really told.
> 
> Our friend "rylah" scored a bulls-eye when he uncovered the serious question on the issue of liberation.  Since the creation of Committee 24 (C-24)(the _*Special Committee on Decolonization*_), nothing in the immediate proximity of the Arab -Israeli Conflict was ever considered "non-Self-Governing (_the_ _Non-Self-Governing Territories __are defined as "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government__"_).
> 
> The disputed territories have, at one time or another, been subject to self-governing institutions.  It is just that the Arab Palestinian people lost control of it in favor of the various terrorist groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


I don't see a dispute.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see a dispute.



Much as you don't see it
when your  "March of Return" leaders
have bought mansions and moved abroad?

Arab supremacists have a tendency "to not see",
as an escape to their narrative bubble from reality.
Self-perpetuating cycle resulting in nothing but individual greed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 36 - RIFQA & Memories That Could Have Been​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Full Ep. 15 - Royal House of Mandela Stands with Palestine with Nkosi Zwelivelile Mandela​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Full Ep. 05 - Moving the Goalposts with Nora Barrows-Friedman​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Full Ep. 05 - Moving the Goalposts with Nora Barrows-Friedman​





P F Tinmore said:


> Full Ep. 05 - Moving the Goalposts with Nora Barrows-Friedman​


Zionism is  “ Racist State “ ideology “ yet “ No Israelis in Palestine” or no Jews allowed to have access to the Western Wall?
  Hypocrite Tinmore exposed his racism  once again.  Thank You 🙏


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Zionism is  “ Racist State “ ideology “ yet “ No Israelis in Palestine” or no Jews allowed to have access to the Western Wall?
> Hypocrite Tinmore exposed his racism  once again.  Thank You 🙏


Of course Tinmore would think my response is “ funny” That’s because he can’t intelligently deny it 🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

NYU Webinar - We Will Not Be Silenced​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Academic Speech and Freedom on Palestine Under Attack​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it is a national liberation struggle.


Indeed, not.

Indeed, the Islamic entity has told you it is a religious war.

_“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”_

Try paying attention. Taqiyya fools no one.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Breaking Through the Bias – Confronting Anti-Palestinian Media Coverage with Dr Yara Hawari​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Exposing Colonial Peace-Building from Palestine to Ireland​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mohammed El-Kurd | Giving Rise to a New Generation of Palestinian Journalists | Nov 2021 |​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Exposing Colonial Peace-Building from Palestine to Ireland​



This meant to excuse Irish and Arab colonization
on several continents?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Mohammed El-Kurd | Giving Rise to a New Generation of Palestinian Journalists | Nov 2021 |​



The new generation of _ "we'll never leave"_
while sipping Vodka in the 'Great Satan'.

T'fadal!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rashid Khalidi & Zarefah Baroud | Giving Rise to a New Generation of Palestinian Journalists​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Unity Intifada: Any Role for the PLO?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 35 - Judaism compels us to Free Palestine with Noam Shuster​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Twenty Years After 9/11: Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defragmenting Palestine: Breaking the Barriers from Sheikh Jarrah to Lydda, Gaza, and Beyond​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

A Founding Generation of Looters: New Research on Israeli Theft of Palestinian Property in 1948​


----------



## Mac-7

P F Tinmore said:


> For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.


This is a pretty boring thread so far because I am not interested in being lectured to by terrorists

If anything the Palestinians and their sympathizers should sit down and listen to people who know how to make peace

Because the arabs do not have a clue


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More of the phony "war on terror."*

The Terrorism Smear: Israel’s Move to Shut Down Palestinian Human Rights Work​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 08 - Do Not Comply! with Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore

100 Years of Palestinian History & Explaining the Uprising of 2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mac-7 said:


> This is a pretty boring thread so far because I am not interested in being lectured to by terrorists
> 
> If anything the Palestinians and their sympathizers should sit down and listen to people who know how to make peace
> 
> Because the arabs do not have a clue


44K views, somebody is looking at this stuff.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 04 - The Charade​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Texas & the Constitutional Right to Boycott​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Permission to Narrate: The Shifting Discourse on Israel/Palestine in the U.S.​


----------



## Mac-7

P F Tinmore said:


> 44K views, somebody is looking at this stuff.


Apparently libs have nothing better to do


----------



## P F Tinmore

Spotlight on Al Haq & Israel's Declaration of War Against Palestinian Human Rights Defenders​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin's "Gaza Fights for Freedom"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kim Iversen: Israel’s ‘Boycott Ben & Jerrys’ Mirrors CHINA Policy, EXPOSES GOP Free Speech HYPOCRISY​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Whose Narratives? Whose Classrooms?: Teaching Palestine, Gender & Sexual Justice in the Pandemic​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 44K views, somebody is looking at this stuff.



Arab supremacists are desperate for attention,
but mistake it for support or being right...
circular logic is a safe bubble,
thus reality. 

Having 2 billion religiously blind followers,
you start with a numeric advantage,
and still can only brag about that,
is that really a success?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 100 Years of Palestinian History & Explaining the Uprising of 2021​



That's how it looks,
when the enemies of Israel get too eager
to describe their own demise without realizing it.

_"And I shall harden the heart of Pharaoh..." Shemot 7_


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Abby Martin's "Gaza Fights for Freedom"​


Not if you're a young woman with brains,
Abby Martin sold her soul long ago.

Gaza is a Hamas caliphate.
Caliphates don't value freedom.









						Gaza woman’s plans to study abroad foiled by Hamas ‘guardian’ law
					

Afaf al-Najar was turned away from the Rafah crossing because her estranged father filed a petition to block her from traveling to Turkey to attend university




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Whose Narratives? Whose Classrooms?: Teaching Palestine, Gender & Sexual Justice in the Pandemic​



Narrative is what  Arab supremacists you rely on,
having no truth or justice in their cause.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

We Will not be Silenced at Western University​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settlers, Olives, and Occupation: Voices from the West Bank​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are Renegade Jewish Settlers Ruining The Two State Solution? (2012)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 38 - Palestinian Hustle with Samer Fidy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Four Perspectives on the Israeli Palestinian Conflict | Carnegie Connects​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 29 - The Revolution Will Not Be Livestreamed​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian-American Lana Shehadeh Shares Her Experience in the West Bank with Marianne Williamson​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem describe life under Israeli occupation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Genocidal Israeli Mobs Attack Palestinians - Exclusive Ali Abunimah Interview​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Two-State Delusion: Israel Is A Racist One State Nightmare​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's war on Labour and the Democrats with Ali Abunimah | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Update: Ali Abunimah on Israeli Ethnic Cleansing in Silwan​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is U.S. opinion shifting on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are international laws respected in Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Emile Bustani Middle East Seminar with Sara Roy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine, and the Foundations of U.S. Policy in the Middle East​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Secret Israeli dossier provides no proof for declaring Palestinian NGOs ‘terrorists’"​

It is just part of Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Not Without Precedent: The History of Israel’s Escalating War on Palestinian Solidarity Work​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More of Israel's phony war on terror.*

Show us the evidence: Peter Beinart with human rights attorney and Member of Knesset Gaby Lasky​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Current Israeli-Palestinian Crisis: Possibilities for New Junctures or a Return to Status Quo?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Podcast Ep 28: Demanding justice for the Holy Land Five
					

Daughters of Palestinian American charity leaders describe lasting, devastating effects of US government persecution.




					electronicintifada.net
				




12 Years of Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five; a Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who controls the media message on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is a third intifada on the way? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Kids Talk| Youngest  Journalist in the world from Palestine| why and how!?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The sour grapes show.*

Rep. Tlaib Pushes Antisemitism at Democrat Socialists Convention​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Miko Peled speaking at University of California San Diego with Students for Justice in Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Podcast Ep 25: The Muslim Zionists​
On Episode 25 of The Electronic Intifada Podcast, we speak with writer and author Steven Salaita and EI’s Ali Abunimah about the phenomenon of what Salaita calls Muslim Zionists.



			https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-10/salaitaabunimaheipodcast.mp3


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ali Abunimah explains why Zionism is racism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is What's Happening in Jerusalem, Gaza Israeli 'Apartheid'? | The Mehdi Hasan Show​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ali Abunimah: Implications of the Latest Israeli Reign of Terror​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nora-Barrows Friedman - American Media Coverage of Israel / Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

LIVE - Gaza under attack: Israeli apartheid with Ali Abunimah, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, the Squad & How the Right To Resist Imperial Violence Is Universal, w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Heads up Canada!*

Yes, Canada Arms and Funds Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 4): Return Is Our Right And Our Destiny - Lubnah Shomali​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 14): Prisons, Propaganda & Oppression #1 - Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Canadian Lawmakers React To Israeli Strikes​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 15): Prisons, Propaganda & Oppression #2 - Sahar Francis​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 17): Winning The Battle For Justice In Palestine - Ali Abunimah​


----------



## MJB12741

I have to agree Israel's Zionist treatment of the Palestinians is disgusting & unacceptable for any hope for a lasting peace.
No Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does with peace offerings & land concessions.
When will Israel ever learn from king Hussein how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  Damn it Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Treatment of Arab Palestinians
⁜→ MJB12741, et al,

*BLUF*: The backlash by the Israelis against the Arab Palestinians is not new. It has been building for some time. The conflict between the Israelis (_1948 and forward_) and the Arab Palestinians has been gradually building over nearly (≈) three-quarters of a century. Its growth is in both intensity and magnitude. And it now spans across three generations within the culture. And that is expanding still since the hatred has now seeped through the wall between the second and third generation (≈ 2010) of Arab Palestinian cultural tiers. The hatred is formalized in the society of the Arab Palestinians and will take more than a century to turn around, even if we begin today. World War II cultural discrepancies have not yet faded away. And that dampening process began 75 years ago. The Arab Palestinians have not even started to cleanse the culture and scrub away the deterioration separating the two people.
.


MJB12741 said:


> I have to agree Israel's Zionist treatment of the Palestinians is disgusting & unacceptable for any hope for a lasting peace.
> No Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does with peace offerings & land concessions.
> When will Israel ever learn from king Hussein how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  Damn it Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


*(COMMENT)*

There is no question that the Israelis will have to step up their game and become much more proactive in identifying those actions that would begin the paradigm shift from where the two cultures are today and the path they want to take for the future.  While it is possible that the changes can see results over the next century, the political atmosphere of today is generally interested in immediate gratification for reasons of personal advancement.  These influential personalities are not interested in playing the long game.  It simply does not serve any immediate need they may have as a priority.  And this is true of both the Israeli and Arab Palestinian perceptions of the political equation. 

Now, this observation does not just impact the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but also other areas; to include the confrontation brewing over the Iranian nuclear development programs.  And it is not localized to the Levant Region; but rather, a number of locals around the world.

NOTE:  America has a terrible problem inside the Beltway with the WITFM (What's in it for me?) Syndrome.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #53: The Future of US Policy Towards Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The conflict between the Israelis (_1948 and forward_) and the Arab Palestinians has been gradually building over nearly (≈) three-quarters of a century.


Indeed, Israel's settler colonialism increases.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #45: ‘Women Resisting Occupation and Apartheid’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

EXCLUSIVE - Ahed Tamimi: 'We are all fighting for our freedom as Palestinians'​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

"The Palestinian Sharpeville" - Professor Haidar Eid on global implications of Gaza massacre​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Treatment of Arab Palestinians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Israel's settler colonialism increases.


*(COMMENT)*

Again - This is unresponsive and confusing.  The (so-called) settler issue did not come about until after the Oslo Accords and the establishment of Area "C":  (*Special Provisions concerning Area C*)

Functional jurisdiction in Area C, as detailed in Article IV of Annex III.​​The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred.​
This was agreed to by the "*sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people* in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order,


Israel and public order?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel and public order?



How strange. I found nothing regarding the legal system of "Pal'istan", which as we know was a country invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924. 

Nothing for the "country of Gaza", which as we know was a "new state'' similarly invented by the Treaty of Lausanne. 










						Countries Compared by Government > Legal system. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
					

A brief description of the legal system's historical roots, role in government, and acceptance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction.



					www.nationmaster.com
				





Israelmixed legal system of English common law, British Mandate regulations, and Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious laws


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> How strange. I found nothing regarding the legal system of "Pal'istan", which as we know was a country invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924.
> 
> Nothing for the "country of Gaza", which as we know was a "new state'' similarly invented by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countries Compared by Government > Legal system. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
> 
> 
> A brief description of the legal system's historical roots, role in government, and acceptance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelmixed legal system of English common law, British Mandate regulations, and Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious laws


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


You're a total hoot swishing around in your islamo-dancing shoes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #46: ‘Systemic Racism in the US and Israel’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Bethlehem-Jerusalem-Nazareth: Hope and Resilience in Difficult Times- Webinar​


----------



## P F Tinmore

CATCUSA | Day 1 |  Palestinian Israeli Conflict 101 Rev  Alex Awad & Jonathan Kuttab​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin talks about Gaza, Palestine, Israel, BDS, and her film: Gaza Fights For Freedom​


----------



## San Souci

Since there is no such thing as "Palistine" ,what is the point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel’s Shifting Political Landscape and National Security​
Interesting part @ 51:00


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: To "BiBi" or not to "BiBi"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This panel addressed so many issues in fact and so many hypotheticals, it cannot be addressed in just one USMB exchange.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel’s Shifting Political Landscape and National Security*​Interesting part @ 51:00


*(COMMENT)*

A vast majority of the discussion (now over two years old) is about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of Israeli domestic interest.  And except for the members of the group who are Israeli, we (Americans) should have little to say about it.  Relative to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, few (very few) Americans have the knowledge and expertise in what conditions must be set for any of the solutions to become reasonably viable.

As an outside observer, I'm not even sure that the project the Institute for National Strategy (INSS) is pursuing is even, productive in any form.

There is one point the panel did make, that I have also mentioned before; that being "apartheid." As long as the internal domestic development of the Arab Israeli population is treated fairly and with a voice that is due one-fifth of the population, Israel can say that they are *NOT* an "Apartheid State." But if Israel has any notion of annexing portions of the West Bank, the Arabs in that territory annexed MUST have the same rights and privileges due any other Israeli Citizen (one law for everyone).  IF they don't - THEN Israel will become an Apartheid State.  But I do not really see any serious consideration being given that agenda.  One of the panelists mentioned giving the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank an opportunity to vote on the Israeli Occupation.  But again, I don't see any serious effort into how such an idea would be accomplished or how a ballot would be constructed.

The US should NOT get involved in any of these issues with a clear invitation by the Israelis.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> , Israel can say that they are *NOT* an "Apartheid State."


Some say that Israel was created as an apartheid state. They placed people in different boxes for different rights and different treatment. Of course the Palestinians were always on the bottom rung of that ladder.

BTW, what do you think of the info @ 51:00?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure.
> 
> The 1948 war began on May 15, 1948 when five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. The players were the Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt.
> 
> The fighting ended in less than a year when a UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.
> -----------------
> The Nakba began in December of 1947 when Zionist forces attack Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes. The players are the Zionist/Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians. That conflict has never ended. It continues to today.
> ------------------
> So, we have two different times, two different players, two different goals, and two different results.


I notice that nobody refuted my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Dialogue that Matters with Marianne Williamson​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: To "BiBi" or not to "BiBi"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Some say that Israel was created as an apartheid state. They placed people in different boxes for different rights and different treatment. Of course the Palestinians were always on the bottom rung of that ladder.
> 
> BTW, what do you think of the info @ 51:00?





P F Tinmore said:


> I notice that nobody refuted my post.


*(COMMENT)*

At the ≈ 51:00 (+/-) mark, they are making the point about "Democratic Resilience."  And while I have never used that particular term before, I have approached that from several different directions.

But I want to make the point that there was no real claim made by any of the panelists.   They made their observations and then presented their view.  

You claim - "nobody refuted my post."  Well, that is because you did not state your case.

You did not make any contributions to the commentary on that page (#138).  And most people don't want to make an argument in the blind that you did not contribute.







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You claim - "nobody refuted my post." Well, that is because you did not state your case.


You asked a question and I answered it, There was no response. I am sure that I will continue to hear the lie that the 1948 war was the couse of the refugee problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> At the ≈ 51:00 (+/-) mark, they are making the point about "Democratic Resilience."


----------



## P F Tinmore

The US-Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Rania Khalek​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> You asked a question and I answered it, There was no response. I am sure that I will continue to hear the lie that the 1948 war was the cause of the refugee problem.


So RoccoR, what part of my post do you disagree with?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Breaking the Status Quo - Rights of Palestinians - Palestinian Nationalism
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*INTRO*:  While the presentation is somewhat interesting from an intellectual standpoint, it is an hour-and-a-half of what remains of your life that you will never get back.



P F Tinmore said:


> Concerning - "Discussion with Peter Beinart"


*(COMMENT)*

First, let me start by saying that the presentation is a → _*J•Space Canada*_ production. They have an image of themselves that you should best hear from them (hence the link) ... I have my own view of J•Space from an entirely different perspective; that being they are a SHADOW Organization with no tangible output. Like a shadow, they are there and under certain lighting conditions you can see it, but that can only impact perception but cannot affect reality. When dark times come, they simply disappear into the background. Otherwise, they are well stocked with a basket full of intelligent contributors.


They used the term - "Progressive Zionist." I do not know what that means. I am not sure, the way some people use the term → "Zionist" → how can that be progressive?

*(POINTS of CONTENTION)*
They also make the argument (*tangentially*) that if they (who are they: I am not sure if it is the Zionists or Israelis) do not face the NAKBA (*“disaster” • “catastrophe” etc.*) they are doomed to repeat it. I think that is not subject to proof. An event such as the NAKBA (_*a nomenclature associated almost exclusively with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict*_) can happen.

The suggestion was made that the "Two-State Solution" should really be referred to as a "Partition." The presentation suggests that a Palestinian State alongside the Jewish State will be a pattern of different Palestinian political subdivisions that are disconnected and will never rise to the level of being a real functioning government providing for the wants and needs of the Arab Palestinian population. I (_*OTH*_) suggest that the mosaic of non-viable Palestinian elements is already the *status quo*. And it was a by-product of the Palestinian Government to make way for fraud and corruption. The Palestinians themselves do not deny this. IF there is a status quo THEN it is one the Palestinians have no real interest in changing.

The presentation talks about the lack of "shared space" (undefined) and "human rights." This is another misconception. These rights are not conferred by some deity dropping down from the sky - and in the flash of a bolt of lightning - grant this petition. Like the people of every other country in the world, freedoms, peace, and human rights are the product of hard work. You don't just sit on your ass and wait for it to come in the mail. It is not something you can order from Amazon. The first step for a better tomorrow is to decide to adopt the tenants in the Covenant_* on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR). That is imperative_*!*_
I am somewhat surprised that J-Space did not emphasize this point. After all, they bill themselves as being "a *one-stop-shop* for discussions around *social justice, peace, and civil rights*, both in Israel and Canada." While they did mention this at the very beginning, within the first 25 minutes of the discussion, it turns away from the two-way notion of it becomes a one-way door.

_*(Ω )*_

The presentation is over an hour and a half long. *IF* I were to comment on every aspect of every point *THEN* it would take me hours to flush out the commentary. All I can say now is, nothing they discuss has not been touched upon in these USMB discussions.







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza, BDS and Justice for Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Breaking the Status Quo - Rights of Palestinians - Palestinian Nationalism
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> So@ RoccoR, what part of my post do you disagree with?


*(COMMENT)*

You still did not contribute anything.

It was only an insert you posted.

There was no single issue that started the 1948 War for Independence.  It was a string of events of ever-increasing in the Jewish - Arab discord.  The British said it best: “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles."

However, the fact that the 1948 War for Independence was a trigger for the more open conflict of the last seven decades - and the lack of cooperation and compromise by the Arab Palestinians have contributed the most in the perpetuation of the conflict and the present situation the Arab Palestinian now find themselves.

◈   The growing intensity in the Arab Palestinians generational infection of Jewish Hatred over the last 70 years has ensured that the discord will continue for another century.​​◈   Many might look at the response by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a practical indicator of how the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank further react should the Israelis begin a withdrawal and gradually relax security controls.​ 
While the Israeli attitude for the Arab Palestinians has not been perfect, it is hard to imagine how it would not be so given the violent nature of the (HoAP).  In fact, given the constant belligerent behavior of the Arab Palestinian, it is a wonder (as an outside observer) that the Israeli has not been more draconian.  There is simply no restraint on the part of the Arab Palestinian.  With the constant amplification of hostility, incitement to violence, and the total disregard for the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the corruption by - and constant threats by various Arab Palestinian Leaders there is virtually no possibility that the two sides can live together in peace.  And although we constantly hear that HoAP does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but continue the struggle against the Israelis who occupy Palestine. 





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:https://www.usmessageboard.com/goto/post?id=28705092


> RoccoR said:                    Q: Please explain, what is the difference between the 1948 War and The Nakba?





> Sure.
> 
> The 1948 war began on May 15, 1948 when five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. The players were the Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt.
> 
> The fighting ended in less than a year when a UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.
> -----------------
> The Nakba began in December of 1947 when Zionist forces attack Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes. The players are the Zionist/Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians. That conflict has never ended. It continues to today.
> ------------------
> So, we have two different times, two different players, two different goals, and two different results.



You did not respond to my post.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Conflict Period
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing I say relative to your definitions is going to be satisfactory.  So I just remained silent.  It depends on who's references you use.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:https://www.usmessageboard.com/goto/post?id=28705092
> 
> You did not respond to my post.


*(COMMENT)*

If you use the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) as a reference, if you maintained a normal place of residence within Palestine (thumbnail) during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 Persons who meet United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s Palestine Refugee criteria.

I do not use the term "NAKBA" because it is a loaded term with baggage.



			
				UN Under-Secretary-General • CPI said:
			
		

> A comprehensive database with full-text documentation of the role of the United Nations system and other international and non-governmental organizations relevant to the Question of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1946 is available, with a directory of linked sites, at UNISPAL-United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine.
> SOURCE: Kiyo Akasaka • Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, page iv • *Blue Book Question of Palestine*



I think that 1946-1947 to have been a period was an intensive period of civil unrest.
I consider 1947-1948 to have been the short Civil War with the territory subject to the Mandate.
I consider 1948-1949 to have been the period in which Arab League Forces confront Israeli Forces.
I consider 1949 and forward the Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria took what territory they could under occupation. Israel merely maintained the Armistice Lines.
I do not feel it is worth the discussion entanglement over the exact names we call the periods. It simply is not worth the bandwidth.

I take issue with the notion spread by the Arab Palestinians that the period ≈ 1922 to present constitute Israeli Occupation of Arab territory - that being Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south.

But if the claimant (the Arab Palestinians) wants to insist that it is all Zionist occupation, then what difference does it make if they maintain control of the West Bank? If the Israel’s are going to be painted as the black-hearted invaders the Arab Palestinians claim them to be, then what difference do a few more thousand square kilometers make.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I do not use the term "NAKBA" because it is a loaded term with baggage.


Of course not. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions. The liars say that five Arab armies attacked the new state of Israel. (not true) That the Arabs lost that war. (not true) That the refugees were a product of the war that the Arabs started. (not true)


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course not. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions. The liars say that five Arab armies attacked the new state of Israel. (not true) That the Arabs lost that war. (not true) That the refugees were a product of the war that the Arabs started. (not true)


Actually, it’s true.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem: Prof John Quigley​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem: Nadia Hijab​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Media Biases Against the Palestinians! Mnar Adley/ Editor Mint Press News.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #42: ‘Coronacrisis: Anti-Palestinian Racism and Grassroots Resistance’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #41: Yara Harawi & Rania Muhareb - ‘Israeli Annexation: Ramifications& Resistance’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> if you maintained a normal place of residence within Palestine (thumbnail) during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 Persons who meet United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s Palestine Refugee criteria.


UNWRA does not define who is a refugee. It defines who qualifies for aid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Actually, it’s true.


Links?

Of course not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> But if the claimant (the Arab Palestinians) wants to insist that it is all Zionist occupation,


You have been dancing around that question for years but have never posted anything showing that not to be true.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees?  And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> UNWRA does not define who is a refugee. It defines who qualifies for aid.


*(COMMENT)*

II agree 100%.  In my opinion, the definition of a "Palestinian Refugee" should be taken from the *Convention relating to the Status of Refugees* (CRSR) 91951).

The problem with using it is that it does NOT apply to most of the registrants under UNRWA coverage.  In fact, there may be as few as 50,000 Palestinian refugees under Article 1 of the CRSR.  Article 1c of the Convention is very devastating.






P F Tinmore said:


> You have been dancing around that question for years but have never posted anything showing that not to be true.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, this argument is a losing proposition for the Arab Palestinians.  It was never sovereign under the Arab Palestinians for it to have been occupied.  The *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA), which was the joint force's administration over the Levant ended the control over the Territory subject to the Mandate in June 1920.  At that time, it was technically under the control of the British High Commissioner (BHC).  While the Jewish Agency cooperated with the BHC, the Arab Higher Committee declined to become involved and declined the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration.

Well, I will never be able to satisfy your criteria, because you don't have one.  And so it is a waste of bandwidth to keep explaining the status of the territory between 1920 and 1967.  Remember that:

​So, if there was not an identified state or country prior to 2012, then who occupied territory which was not a State or country for the purposes of independence.  This is one of those points we will just have to agree to disagree on.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> II agree 100%. In my opinion, the definition of a "Palestinian Refugee" should be taken from the *Convention relating to the Status of Refugees* (CRSR) 91951).


"Palestinian Refugee" was defined in resolution 194.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was never sovereign under the Arab Palestinians for it to have been occupied.


The West Bank was occupied by Jordan. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt. The rest of Palestine was occupied by Israel. Now they are all occupied by Israel. What sovereign are they talking about?

What is the difference between the occupations of Jordan, Egypt, and Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*Article 14 • Chapter IV • United Nations Charter*​Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly *may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation*, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among na- tions, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.​


P F Tinmore said:


> "Palestinian Refugee" was defined in resolution 194.


*(COMMENT)*

*A/RES/194 (III) * 11 December 1948 Is a General Assembly Resolution.  It can only recommend measures but does not have the force of law.

Another thing you must consider is that → you cannot apply a law made in December to an action taken in May.

Article 24 • PART 3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW • *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*​*Non-retroactivity ratione personae*​​
No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgment, the law more favorable to the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted shall apply.


I have noticed that many pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), anti-Jewish movements, other confrontational advocates, and antagonistic organizations opposed to the State of Israel sling that General Assembly Resolution as if it was a commandment carved in stone.  It is just a recommendation.

Please read this carefully:  

_*Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any *restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others,* and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​
Some might think that Arab Palestinians that advocate on behalf or vote for (in an election) a designated terrorist organization, constitutes a national security risk.  

Yes → you can hang your hat on A/RES/194 (III) as some sort of deliverance, but it is not.  





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *A/RES/194 (III) * 11 December 1948 Is a General Assembly Resolution. It can only recommend measures but does not have the force of law.


Resolution 194, like many General Assembly Resolutions, is based on already existing international law.

UN Resolution 242 states:


> _Emphasizing_ the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...


Resolution 242 did not make this up. This was reiterating already existing international law.

And this leads us to the never answered question: How much of Palestinian territory did Israel illegally acquire by war?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Some might think that Arab Palestinians that advocate on behalf or vote for (in an election) a designated terrorist organization, constitutes a national security risk.


Hamas are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected. They are only terrorists to the foreign name callers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Another thing you must consider is that → you cannot apply a law made in December to an action taken in May.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Resolution 194, like many General Assembly Resolutions, is based on already existing international law.


*(COMMENT)*

First, take notice that when this argument is used, such arguments rarely mention the source of this law (interpretation).

This statement is true.  But what A/RES/194 (III) says is an "approximation" of what the Customary Law and Charter (law) actually says.

Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant made it unlawful to wage war for the purpose of acquiring territory:

*ARTICLE 10  League of Nations (LoN) Covenant*​The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.​
*League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document*​


Article 10, LoN Covenant was adopted in its current form as* Article 2(4) UN Charter* (1945):
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​


P F Tinmore said:


> UN Resolution 242 states:  _Emphasizing_the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...
> 
> Resolution 242 did not make this up. This was reiterating already existing international law.


*(COMMENT)*

*Security Council resolution 242 (1967)* of 22 November 1967 (AKA "Land for Peace" Resolution)

In the last quarter of the 20th Century, the Drafters at different times made the intent of S/RES/242 clearer.  This seemed to be necessary from the misinterpretations expressed by the anti-Israeli movements of that period.  A compilation of these frank exchanges was assembled by *CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis) in January 2007*.



P F Tinmore said:


> And this leads us to the never answered question: How much of Palestinian territory did Israel illegally acquire by war?


*(COMMENT)*

This is an interesting question...

You have been given the answer many times, but refuse to accept it because it does NOT fit your neat little pro-Arab Palestinian and anti-Israeli agenda.

Some would argue that Israel did not acquire any land by act or act of aggression.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.​Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​
Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.​Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.​
Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.​[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say _precisely_ what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.​
The question to you is, do you cite an authority on the intent of S/RES/242 that takes legal precedents over that of the Authors?  If you can, I would like to hear about it.

Article 22  • Part II General Principles of Criminal Law • *Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*​*Nullum crimen sine lege *​
A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
*The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.*
This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Security Council resolution 242 (1967)* of 22 November 1967 (AKA "Land for Peace" Resolution)


You took Resolution 242 beyond the scope of my post without addressing my post. You brought it into 1967 when my focus was 1948. I was using 242 as an example not as a basis for discussion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 10, LoN Covenant was adopted in its current form as* Article 2(4) UN Charter* (1945):
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


The Nakba was (is) a violation of Palestinian rights and a violation of the UN Charter.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I noticed that in your discussion, you failed to mention that Israel did NOT, by any act of aggression, acquire more territory from any state.  In fact, it was Arab League states, that expanded their control.  One went so far as to Annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem







P F Tinmore said:


> You took Resolution 242 beyond the scope of my post without addressing my post. You brought it into 1967 when my focus was 1948. I was using 242 as an example not as a basis for discussion.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no prohibition in the 1948 era INTERNATIONAL LAW that the Israeli acquisition of
territory violated.   And it can be argued that Israel originally acquired sovereignty through "self-determination."

The Territory, under UN trusteeship, passed under the dominion to the Sovereign Nation of Israel by; → Transference through the abandonment (_*unilateral withdrawal by the Mandatory - UK*_), which was accepted without exception, for the assumption of sovereignty over.

NOTATIONS
*UN Charter (1945) Article 2(3)*: “All Members shall settle their international disputes​by peaceful means in such a manner that peace and security, and justice are not endangered.”​​*UN Charter (1945) Article 2(4):* “All Members shall refrain in their international​relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political​independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United​Nations.”​





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> The Nakba was (is) a violation of Palestinian rights and a violation of the UN Charter.


*(COMMENT)*

Give me a citation to the "Palestinian Rights" which you hold up.  And what specifically are you alleging the Israelis did.  Remember, under International Law, prior to May 1948, the Palestinians and Israelis (both) had the same citizenship.  The conflict was a domestic issue with Palestinians in conflict with Palestinians.  

So I ask you.  What International Law are you referring to?





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The conflict was a domestic issue with Palestinians in conflict with Palestinians.


Not really. The citizenship law allowing colonial settlers to obtain citizenship was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes and best interest of the native population.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You make comments like this quite frequently...



P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. The citizenship law allowing colonial settlers to obtain citizenship was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes and best interest of the native population.


*(COMMENT)*

Now, this is totally twisted around.  This is a propaganda sound bite that appears to be deliberately intended to deceive the discussion group.

The control of the former Ottoman Empire Territory came into the hands by means of the outcome from WWI.  The vast swath of Levant was relinquished by the former sovereign power into the hands of the Allied Powers at the conclusion of the conflict.

*Article 16* • (Part I Political Clauses) • (Section I Territorial Clauses) • *Treaty of Lausanne *​
"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries."​
The *Citizenship Law* was a necessity that was "granted" by the Mandate Power and pursuant to the *Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890*.  The Citizenship Law was to recognize (*by the Mandate Power as the competent of the Territory*) under the Order in Council those people in residence as having both the "rights and obligations" which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The action was intended to prevent the condition of a "stateless person."   The Citizenship Law was not applied at the point of a gun but applied without prejudice such treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.  It was with profound concern, as expressed by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers, in the San Remo Conference (1920) for the habitual residences to afford them "the widest exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms" possible.   





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> The Nakba was (is) a violation of Palestinian rights and a violation of the UN Charter.


*(COMMENT)*

The Nakba, in a period prior to 1948, was not a violation of the UN Charter.  After 1948 territorial control was under an UN-facilitated Armistice.

Relative to your "(is)"_sic_ → today's Border Arrangements are governed by these agreements:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •​​◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​​◈ Golan Heights Law •​​◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •​​◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​​◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon* •*​
I think this covers every single aspect of the current "Border."  As far as the Settleme3nts in Area "C" are concerned, the Palestinians agreed to the following:

Article IV of Annex III​
"Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.​
The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred."​
I cannot help but wonder where you got the idea that something is in violation of the Charter.  It looks simple to me...





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You make comments like this quite frequently...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now, this is totally twisted around.  This is a propaganda sound bite that appears to be deliberately intended to deceive the discussion group.
> 
> The control of the former Ottoman Empire Territory came into the hands by means of the outcome from WWI.  The vast swath of Levant was relinquished by the former sovereign power into the hands of the Allied Powers at the conclusion of the conflict.
> 
> *Article 16* • (Part I Political Clauses) • (Section I Territorial Clauses) • *Treaty of Lausanne *​
> "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries."​
> The *Citizenship Law* was a necessity that was "granted" by the Mandate Power and pursuant to the *Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890*.  The Citizenship Law was to recognize (*by the Mandate Power as the competent of the Territory*) under the Order in Council those people in residence as having both the "rights and obligations" which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The action was intended to prevent the condition of a "stateless person."   The Citizenship Law was not applied at the point of a gun but applied without prejudice such treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.  It was with profound concern, as expressed by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers, in the San Remo Conference (1920) for the habitual residences to afford them "the widest exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms" possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


The Citizenship Law and its immigration policy was universally rejected by the Palestinians. It was implemented because Britain had the guns.

This was a violation of Palestinian rights and was inconsistent with the LoN Covenant.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you opened this can of worms.  You know as well as I do that the Arab Palestinians were rejected (at least 3 times) a voice in the self-governing institutions between 1920 and 1924.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Citizenship Law and its immigration policy was universally rejected by the Palestinians. It was implemented because Britain had the guns.
> 
> This was a violation of Palestinian rights and was inconsistent with the LoN Covenant.


*(QUESTION)*

So, tell me... What were the civil and political rights for the population from the former enemy territory prior to 1930?

Name them specifically and their source.

As far as the Covenant it discontinued functioning purpose on *20 April 1946* when the League of Nations (LoN) dissolved.  What was the customary practice?  Just how did the LoN and Allied Powers treat Germany (for instance)?





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I noticed that in your discussion, you failed to mention that Israel did NOT, by any act of aggression, acquire more territory from any state.


Let's put away some Israeli bullshit propaganda.

The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post was treaties.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> As far as the Covenant it discontinued functioning purpose on *20 April 1946* when the League of Nations (LoN) dissolved.


OK, but the creation of Israel violated the UN Charter.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> OK, you opened this can of worms. You know as well as I do that the Arab Palestinians were rejected (at least 3 times) a voice in the self-governing institutions between 1920 and 1924.


The poison pill was that they would have to take part in the settler colonial project.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Let's put away some Israeli bullshit propaganda.
> 
> The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post was treaties.



Was that before or after the Treaty of Lausanne invented the "country of Pal'istan"?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Mental Capacity
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Let's put away some Israeli bullshit propaganda.
> The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post was treaties.


*(COMMENT)*

Neither the League of *Nations (LoN) Covenant* (_26 Articles and over 4000 words_) nor the *Treaty of Lausanne* (_143 Article and over 4800 words_) mention Palestine once (NOT even once*!*).

The LoN Covenant was written in a language meant to cover over 690,000 km2 (270,000 sq mi), and from people South-West Africa, South Pacific Islands, Central Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, territories in the Habsburg and Russian Empires, the Levant to the Persian frontier, and all around the Mediterranean. The Covenant was generalized to accommodate a multitude of situations and give great latitude to the Allied Powers and Authorities. The Levant and the territory of Palestine was a small sliver of the scope to which the Covenant applied. Contrary to the propaganda cranked out by the Arab Higher Committee then and the various Hostile Arab Palestinians now, Article 22 was not all about them. In the last century, the Arab Palestinians have been grabbing after every little straw and twisting it to apply to them. They have become a tumor on humanity and a narcissistic culture so foul that they cannot realistically be set loose in modern society or the world a large - unsupervised. As Article 22 implied the Arab Palestinian fit the description “inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world“ causing chaos and havoc.  They do NOT participate in the Permanent Status of Negotiations, Peace Talks, or refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force through diplomatic efforts, disputes by, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.  In short, they have been passing hatred and terror down from generation to generation to such a point that peaceful means to the scope and nature of the disputes are unachievable.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Mental Capacity
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Neither the League of *Nations (LoN) Covenant* (_26 Articles and over 4000 words_) nor the *Treaty of Lausanne* (_143 Article and over 4800 words_) mention Palestine once (NOT even once*!*).
> 
> The LoN Covenant was written in a language meant to cover over 690,000 km2 (270,000 sq mi), and from people South-West Africa, South Pacific Islands, Central Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, territories in the Habsburg and Russian Empires, the Levant to the Persian frontier, and all around the Mediterranean. The Covenant was generalized to accommodate a multitude of situations and give great latitude to the Allied Powers and Authorities. The Levant and the territory of Palestine was a small sliver of the scope to which the Covenant applied. Contrary to the propaganda cranked out by the Arab Higher Committee then and the various Hostile Arab Palestinians now, Article 22 was not all about them. In the last century, the Arab Palestinians have been grabbing after every little straw and twisting it to apply to them. They have become a tumor on humanity and a narcissistic culture so foul that they cannot realistically be set loose in modern society or the world a large - unsupervised. As Article 22 implied the Arab Palestinian fit the description “inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world“ causing chaos and havoc.  They do NOT participate in the Permanent Status of Negotiations, Peace Talks, or refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force through diplomatic efforts, disputes by, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.  In short, they have been passing hatred and terror down from generation to generation to such a point that peaceful means to the scope and nature of the disputes are unachievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Another Palestinian hit piece.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Neither the League of *Nations (LoN) Covenant* (_26 Articles and over 4000 words_) nor the *Treaty of Lausanne* (_143 Article and over 4800 words_) mention Palestine once (NOT even once*!*).


Indeed, they did not say "except Palestine" even once.

Nice deflection, though.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rebel Rabbis: Anti-Zionist Jews Against Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Arrests Target Palestinian Activists In Sheikh Jarrah | The Mehdi Hasan Show​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Israel Trains U.S. Police​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish American Explains Why She Supports Palestine and BDS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phyllis Bennis on Israel, Policing, and U.S. Foreign Policy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Unraveling the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What is America doing in the Mideast? - Phyllis Bennis​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: comprehension
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

From the moment that Israel was established, the Arab Palestinians have been a hostile adversary, for more than 70 years now. 



P F Tinmore said:


> The Nakba was (is) a violation of Palestinian rights and a violation of the UN Charter.


*(COMMENT)*

This is the question.

The Israelis are defending their sovereign territory.

When I see the hostile actions by the Arab Palestinians, I see the Arab Palestinians from this perspective:

◈ The Arab Palestinians have consistently attempted to overrun the establishment of Israel compromising the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Israel.​​◈ The Arab Palestinians intentionally ignore disputes resolution processes being used to resolve by peaceful means in such a manner that peace security is reestablished.​​◈ The Arab Palestinian commit offenses which are solely intended to harm the Israelis and members of the police and security forces and punishable under Customary and International humanitarian Law.​​◈ The Arab Palestinians action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.​​◈ For th Arab Palestinians they consider that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them are deemed null and void.​​◈ The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab Palestinian considers their territorial boundaries the entirety of the territory that was administered by the British Mandate.​​◈ The Hostile Arab Palestinian know it is prohibited by law, call for conflict, incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.​
These are just some of the vast numbers of characteristics the Arab Palestinians reveal daily. They are committing Criminal Acts directed against Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

OK, I'm off the soapbox.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, they did not say "except Palestine" even once.
> 
> Nice deflection, though.


Odd that the authors of the Treaty of Lausanne forgot to include a single statement about the invention of Pally’land. That seems either careless on their part, or, the Treaty was never intended to invent such a country.

Do you have a YouTube video with a different version of the Treaty of Lausanne you’re not sharing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Israelis are defending their sovereign territory.


Do you mean the unceded Palestinian territory, inside Palestine's international borders where the Zionists kicked out the Palestinians and stole everything including robbing the banks.

Is that the "sovereign territory" that Israel is defending?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab Palestinian considers their territorial boundaries the entirety of the territory that was administered by the British Mandate.


You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.

Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Behind the World's Back | Ethnic Cleansing of Sheikh Jarrah, Palestine​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.
> 
> Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?


You base your conclusion on a false premise

You don't seem to understand that lands of the former Ottoman Turks  was never Pal land. The Turks had sovereign control of the territory. The Pals never did. There was no Pal territory.

You are confused, not "the people".


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: comprehension
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean the unceded Palestinian territory, inside Palestine's international borders where the Zionists kicked out the Palestinians and stole everything including robbing the banks.
> 
> Is that the "sovereign territory" that Israel is defending?


*(COMMENT)*

You use this language, in a most absurd way.

Who did "you" expect to yield the territory and to whom?

In the Treaty of Lausanne (ToL), in which the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic wrote the final chapter to the Great War between the two said:



			
				Article 16 • ToL said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> *SOURCE*:  *Hellenic Resources Network*



The Turkish Republic DID NOT renounce "all rights and title" in favor of the Arab Palestinians.  The Turkish Republic relinquish the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers."

Where did the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory have any say over the sovereignty of the territory?  *(RHETORICAL)* Oh, that is correct, the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory were not a party to the Treaty.  They DID NOT have any rights and title to the territory beforehand before the Great War and the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory DID NOT have any rights and title to the territory at any period after the conclusion of the war.   The future of these territories is being settled by the Allied Powers (the parties concerned).

If any party had the "rights and title" to the territory, it certainly was NOT the Arab Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.
> 
> Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?


*(COMMENT)*

I try to use the same language as does the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).  And HoAP has clearly said in *Article 2 of the Palestinian National Charter*: 

"Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate,
 is an indivisible territorial unit."​
I assume you are not Challenging the National Charter.  I assume you are not reinterpreting the Charter.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate,
> is an indivisible territorial unit."


"During the Mandate" was merely a period in history. It had nothing to do with territory. In fact the Mandate was forbidden from doing anything with the territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Who did "you" expect to yield the territory and to whom?


The Treaty of Lausanne said that the territory was transferred to the states.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Understanding
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne said that the territory was transferred to the states.


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty said no such thing.  I just quoted the applicable Territorial Clause from the Treaty to you.  (*See Posting #2745*)

I think you are trying to twist the meaning of Part II • NATIONALITY • Article 30 and substitute it for a Part I • TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • Article 16 which addresses the territory of Syria:  The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the *Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.*" From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britain *(Treaty # 564)*. Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920*. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia." 



P F Tinmore said:


> "During the Mandate" was merely a period in history. It had nothing to do with territory. In fact the Mandate was forbidden from doing anything with the territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, this is a bit wrong.  The Mandatory had limitations, and (for instance) was not allowed to lease or sell any portion of the territory, for the most part, the Administration of Palestine, (the government) had otherwise sweeping powers.

There will always be a place that can be described as "the territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine." And that territory was defined by the Palestine Order in Council (1922).

Do NOT confuse the meaning of "Palestine."  Palestine had many different faces over the century that followed the San Remo Convention.  This was covered pretty well in *Posting #9369* and demonstrated what the word "Palestine" meant in certain time periods. *Posting #2746* explains what the boundaries are today.

You keep saying, "Palestine" has recognized international borders.  That is actually incorrect.  At the time when the Mandate for Palestine terminated, the UN Trustee System picked up.  And then, the National Council for the Jewish State and through self-determination established the Jewish State called Israel.  When the Arab-Israeli Conflict emerged, all the demarcations were in flux until The Kingdom of Jordan annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem in April 1950, using the Armistice Line as its only limitation.  That demarcation became a hard border with the sovereignty of Israel on one side and the sovereignty of Jordan on the other.  In 1967, the military buildup triggered a reopening of the original 1948 Conflict.

Now I know that you are going to say something like the April 1950 Jordanian Annexation did NOT happen because the UN DID NOT approve. That actually changed nothing.  The Occupation and Annexation of the territory did NOT require UN approval.  





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Now I know that you are going to say something like the April 1950 Jordanian Annexation did NOT happen because the UN DID NOT approve. That actually changed nothing. The Occupation and Annexation of the territory did NOT require UN approval.


Annexing occupied territory is a violation of internal law.


> This refers to a unilateral act of a State through which it proclaims its sovereignty over the territory of another State. It usually involves the threat or use of force, as the annexing State usually occupies the territory in question in order to assert its sovereignty over it. Annexation amounts to an act of aggression, forbidden by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annexation (prohibition of) | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> casebook.icrc.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries.


NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dismantling Myths on Israel-Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Annexing occupied territory is a violation of internal law.


*(COMMENT)*

These are just a couple of examples.

◈  The United State and the Kingdom of Hawaii​◈  Saudi Arabia and the Kingdoms of Hejaz and Nejd​◈  The Chinese and Tibet​◈  The Russians and Crimea​
Whatever you think the applicable law was in 1950, makes no difference one way or the other.  The reality is what the countries of the world actually exercise and tolerate.

Just as a side note:  The annexation of Tibet by China in 1951; happened a year after the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.

Whatever you think the international standard was, does not appear to be the rule that the world worked.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*


*(COMMENT)*

That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.

It is the policy on the matter of stateless people.

Secondly, the creation of the states relative to the Mandate had not been determined in 1924.  So the Allied Powers devised administrative governments to fill the void.  I can hardly believe you quote the Article on Nationality but ignore the Article on Territory; even *after I predicted your attempt to use Article 30 in Posting #2771*.

You cannot substitute a Nationality Clause for a Territorial Cause.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> These are just a couple of examples.
> 
> ◈  The United State and the Kingdom of Hawaii​◈  Saudi Arabia and the Kingdoms of Hejaz and Nejd​◈  The Chinese and Tibet​◈  The Russians and Crimea​
> Whatever you think the applicable law was in 1950, makes no difference one way or the other.  The reality is what the countries of the world actually exercise and tolerate.
> 
> Just as a side note:  The annexation of Tibet by China in 1951; happened a year after the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.
> 
> Whatever you think the international standard was, does not appear to be the rule that the world worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Still illegal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.
> 
> It is the policy on the matter of stateless people.
> 
> Secondly, the creation of the states relative to the Mandate had not been determined in 1924.  So the Allied Powers devised administrative governments to fill the void.  I can hardly believe you quote the Article on Nationality but ignore the Article on Territory; even *after I predicted your attempt to use Article 30 in Posting #2771*.
> 
> You cannot substitute a Nationality Clause for a Territorial Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Palestinian Nakba: What Happened in 1948 and Why It Still Matters​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine with Professor Ilan Pappé​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*“Israelizing the American Police, Palestinianizing the American People”

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

In Defense of Solidarity: Palestine on Campus​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noura Erakat discusses her newest book, Justice for Some*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"Nobody is picking on Israel, If you are going to be an Apartheid Pariah state you are actually making yourself a target" - @kKwara Kekana of BDS South Africa on SABC News Online

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

CATCUSA | Day 2 | Jewish & Christian Attitudes Toward The Conflict Rev Bob Roberts & Mark Braverman​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Christians Against Christian Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #52: ‘Targeting Activism for Palestinian Rights’​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Podcast #49: Israel’s illegal settlement economy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Historic Palestinian Uprising​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Wrestling with Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phyllis Bennis on 100 Years After Balfour​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Labor Day, Annexation & Biden? With Phyllis Bennis and Diana Buttu​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shutting Down Israel’s Death Machine in Britain, with Three Activists Who Were There​


----------



## P F Tinmore

P&P Live! Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick | EXCEPT FOR PALESTINE with Michelle Alexander​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Said's Palestine | June 1, 2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Tolerance is a Wasteland: Palestine and the Psychogeography of Denial​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Week: Unity and resistance: heading towards a Palestinian transition?  Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine Week: Unity and resistance: heading towards a Palestinian transition?  Ramzy Baroud​


Unity in resistance... transition to Turkish citizenship?

*Hamas leader Abu-Salmiyeh, spokesman of the March of Return
obtained Turkish citizenship after buying a property worth $250,000*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics​



Limits of Prog politics is cowardice -

the reason Hill never dares ask the oligarch Arab princess,
why in no Pali-Arab government has her family allowed Africans...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Attempts to erase Palestinian identity​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Episode 6 - Hamas, Israel and the Political War against the Jewish State​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ramzy Baroud Author of "The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Growing Solidarity Between BLM and Palestinians | Inside America with Ghida Fakhry​


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇺🇸🇵🇸 How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine? | The Stream​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> 🇺🇸🇵🇸 How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine? |​



The conversation about sleaze that defines both groups is consistent.









						Black Lives Matter is imploding in scandal — a lesson about causes deemed beyond question
					

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that collects the most cash donated to the BLM movement is under question. Several states revoked the organization’s charita…




					www.google.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

What's next after Gaza ceasefire? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is there hope for revived peace talks on Palestine, Israel? | The Bottom Line​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Food, farming and the freedom in Palestine-Laila El-Haddad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Diana Buttu - The New Nakba: Israel's Annexation Plan​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Annexation & What it Means - Part 1: U.S. & International Perspectives​

Annexation & What it Means: Part 2 - Palestinian Perspectives​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Government Escalates Pressure on Israelis Who Stand in Solidarity with Palestinians​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Using "Terrorism" Charges to Target NGOs: Lessons from the Case of Mohamed Halabi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

On Israel’s Declaration of Palestinian Human Rights Groups as “Terrorist Organizations”​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Penn Law SJP - Virtual Panel 7/13/21 feat. Jamil Dakwar, Huwaida Arraf, and George Bisharat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

In conversation with Janna Jihad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

World Without Walls: An Evening with Janna Jihad (Oakland, California) August 1, 2019​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roger Waters: Israel is a ‘Terrorist, Apartheid, Racist Regime!’, Slams Treatment of Palestinians​


----------



## P F Tinmore

2021 Review/2022 Preview: Challenges & Opportunities on the Road to Palestinian Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Another Week in the Life of the "Status Quo" in Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nadia Hijab - Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Cinema as Resistance✦ Annemarie Jacir, Susan Abulhawa, Farah Nabulsi and Tamer Nafar in conversation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Terrorist designations are based on bullshit.*

Israel Again Tries & Fails To Connect Palestinian NGOs to Terrorism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Terrorist designations are based on bullshit.*​​Why is Israel trying to silence Palestinian human rights groups by labelling them terrorists?​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> 🇺🇸🇵🇸 How is Black Lives Matter changing the US conversation on Palestine? | The Stream​


This is actually 😆 Funny! “ Black Lives Matter” don’t even care about their own!! 🤡.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Tatiana Show - The Roots of the Holy Land Conflict with Scott Horton​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Prof Haidar Eid on Corona, Gaza, Palestine and BDS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 5081 – Sheldon Richman on the Real Story of Israel and Palestine – 9/28/2019​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The ethnic cleansing continues!​​Apartheid & Dispossession: Views from the West Bank​


----------



## P F Tinmore

​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi on Zionist Policing of Speech​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Opinion & Analysis                

                    My Day in Palestine: The Stunning Beauty and Cruel Reality of an Occupied Land                ​ 

Walking through the low hills of the Naqab as the sun sets and the moon comes up is an experience that allows us to imagine what Palestine was like before it was torn apart by Zionists and what can still be saved if we act fast.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

MR Conversations: A LAND WITH A PEOPLE​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Politics in the U.S. and Palestine with Rashida Tlaib, Diana Buttu, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi and Dr. Loubna Qutami​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Black Lives Matter, Israeli Annexation and BDS: Robin Kelley, Rabab Abdulhadi, Nerdeen Kiswani​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Black Lives Matter, Israeli Annexation and BDS: Robin Kelley, Rabab Abdulhadi, Nerdeen Kiswani​
> Blacks are Killing each other; One of the founders took a few Million dollars and bought several houses, cars, etc and this is all Tinmore has to come up with?  I assume he doesn’t live in NY, Chicago, California, or many other places that are laden with crime  👂


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 5677 - Ramzy Baroud on the Not-So-Secret Massacres of Palestinian Villages - 2/21/22​


----------



## P F Tinmore

19. Pro-Palestine political action committees are building political power in Washington D.C.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lessons from Palestine: Policing, Prisons, Surveillance and Resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rula Jebreal BLASTS Failed War On Terror Says It Produced NOTHING Except Desperation, Radicalization​


----------



## P F Tinmore

L'Chayim Roundtable: Jews and the Democratic Party​


----------



## P F Tinmore

14. Students for Justice in Palestine: The past, present and future of the student movement for...​


----------



## P F Tinmore

20. Khaled Elgindy on the post-Netanyahu U.S./Israel relationship​


----------



## P F Tinmore

2021 DLS COMPASSION: Maha Nassar​
Start @ 22:30
​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ilan Pappé: Prospects for Peace: Facts and Fiction​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Youth, Diaspora and resistance with Olympian Hanna Barakat and Ahed Tamimi.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

#StandDownLive: Sandra Tamari​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Vivien Sansour, Palestine, LA, USA presents "Seed Conservation; Creating New Worlds"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

James Graff Memorial Lecture 2019 with Samah Sabawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Prof.  Loubna Qutami : Growing up Palestinian and Challenging Zionism in America​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PALCONV2020: The Role of the Diaspora & the Palestinian National Project​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PALCONV2020: The Youth Front for Palestine: Student Success Stories​


----------



## P F Tinmore

U.S. Boats to Gaza Webinar with Palestinian Filmmaker Fida Qishta 10-9-21​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Radihika Sainath: The Israel lobby's attacks on freedom of speech and successful legal challenges.​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

We Refuse to be enemies - Daoud Nassar​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Huwaida Arraf   Lawfare and Legal Challenges in the USA​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Two State Solution is Dead- Now What? Webinar​


----------



## P F Tinmore

US Policy on Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Diana Buttu on Palestine and the two-state Solution​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli-Palestinian Panel Discussion​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Marc Lamont Hill Discusses Conflict Between Israel & Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Marc Lamont Hill, Noura Erakat and Aja Monet on Black-Palestinian Solidarity​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> 'Erakat - Halper - Kuttab'


*(COMMENT)*

Let us get to the point.

This is confusing to me.  They say that the Zionist are NOT a legitimate side --- yet*!* they want to dismantle Israel under the guise of decolonization Movement ("the only way to go") and reject the Two-State Solution.  The concept of Israel is a bit different from the concept of a Jewish National Home.  Most zionists are Israeli, but all Israelis are not zionists. (*Israelis ≠ Zionists*).   

Ms Noura Erakat, esq, admits that the the Palestinians got exactly what the Oslo Accords promised.  That is an important point.  But, you have to dig for it.  Ms Erakat also stipulates that the Oslo Accords and the Two-State Solution are not the same thing.  Ms Erakat see the current path as a rejection of Palestinians as a people (she used the term peopleness).  That if the current developments follow the same pathway, it will result in the "annihilation of the Palestinians."  (She was Speaking in the context of assimilation.)

Jeff Halper claimed that the Two-State Solution was mythological.  It was the wrong paradigm to begin with.  The idea of the current situation as being a "conflict" (Arab-Israeli Conflict • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, etc...) is a misnomer.  To have a conflict, there has to be two sides.  Halper calls this a "misanalysis" from the beginning.  He says that the Settler-Colonial Movement is an attempt to Judaize the territory.   He makes the point that the colonization was "unilateral" and did not ask the people.
Ms Erakat freely admits that she does not have a solution.  She made the point that "the land does not belong to the Palestinians, the Palestinians belong to the land.  The flaw here is that the conflict is more about what government exercises sovereignty.  It does not affect the heritage of the people or their theory of land association.

This is one of the few presentations by Noura Erakat that I did not object to in the very beginning.

Jeff Halper makes his flaw right off the bench.  He forwards the idea that it is not a conflict because there are NOT two sides.  He calls it a "situation."  Well!, *IF* this is true _*THEN*_ it is a Civil War (Non-International Armed Conflict).  And IF this is true, THEN it is a domestic issue and that means:

Article 2(7), UN Charter.​*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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​ 
The adoption of the idea that it is some form of apartheid and only involves the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, involving one jurisdiction then the UN has no real jurisdiction.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem (formerly citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom), would not be considered refugees.  *IF* the Arab Palestinians claim "occupation"* THEN* there are (at least) two jurisdiction involved.  It becomes very difficult to intelligently discuss possible solutions because the Arab Palestinians (themselves) cannot agree on the situation.

Just the Way I See It,




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This is confusing to me. They say that the Zionist are NOT a legitimate side --- yet*!*


There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.

A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*: If the world. only worked that way.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  This is an utopian idea*!*



P F Tinmore said:


> There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.
> 
> A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.


*(COMMENT)*

No matter how much you want this to be true in the world, it simply is not true.  All you have to do is look at Tabet, the South China Sea, the Crimea and now the Ukraine.  And the Ukraine has the *Budapest Memorandum (1994)* wherein the Russian "promised" not to use its weapons against the Ukraine. (_"and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence"_)

These nice platitudes you post are OK in the classroom, but are not written in stone in the outside real-world → the Budapest Memorandum being the latest case in point.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.
> 
> A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.


That oft-used, cut and paste rant needs a refresh.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep saying that " Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun."  Well let us correct the record right now...

In 1967, Israel militarily engaged the hostile forces of the Arab Legion (Jordanian Armed Forces); NOT the military of some mythological force of today's Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Between 1967 and 1988, the Israeli's occupied Jordanian sovereign territory in the West Bank.  It was NOT the sovereign territory of some mythological nation of Palestine.  Ask any West Bank adult that lived in the West Bank in 1967.  They were Jordanian Citizens.



P F Tinmore said:


> A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Ms Noura Erakat, esq, admits that the the Palestinians got exactly what the Oslo Accords promised. That is an important point. But, you have to dig for it. Ms Erakat also stipulates that the Oslo Accords and the Two-State Solution are not the same thing.


The Oslo Accords never mentioned a state. Nor did it mention rights or international law. They were based on the Bantustan constitutions in S. Africa. That is what the Palestinians got. Bantustans. The PA is a Bantustan government.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You keep saying that " Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun."  Well let us correct the record right now...
> 
> In 1967, Israel militarily engaged the hostile forces of the Arab Legion (Jordanian Armed Forces); NOT the military of some mythological force of today's Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Between 1967 and 1988, the Israeli's occupied Jordanian sovereign territory in the West Bank.  It was NOT the sovereign territory of some mythological nation of Palestine.  Ask any West Bank adult that lived in the West Bank in 1967.  They were Jordanian Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


I wasn't talking about 1967.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Ms Erakat freely admits that she does not have a solution. She made the point that "the land does not belong to the Palestinians, the Palestinians belong to the land. The flaw here is that the conflict is more about what government exercises sovereignty. It does not affect the heritage of the people or their theory of land association.


It is an old Indian term. The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land. The Allied Powers defined the territory and the *people who lived there* got nationality, citizenship, and sovereignty of that land.

The Palestinians belong to that land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Ms Erakat see the current path as a rejection of Palestinians as a people (she used the term peopleness).


Israel has always denied the existence of Palestinians and Palestine.

Now the Palestinians only exist as part of Israel terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> *SUBTOPIC*: If the world. only worked that way.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  This is an utopian idea*!*
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No matter how much you want this to be true in the world, it simply is not true.  All you have to do is look at Tabet, the South China Sea, the Crimea and now the Ukraine.  And the Ukraine has the *Budapest Memorandum (1994)* wherein the Russian "promised" not to use its weapons against the Ukraine. (_"and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence"_)
> 
> These nice platitudes you post are OK in the classroom, but are not written in stone in the outside real-world → the Budapest Memorandum being the latest case in point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Holy deflection, Batman!

What does that have to do with my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Jeff Halper makes his flaw right off the bench. He forwards the idea that it is not a conflict because there are NOT two sides. He calls it a "situation." Well!, *IF* this is true _*THEN*_ it is a Civil War


A settler colonial project is not one side of a civil war.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has always denied the existence of Palestinians and Palestine.
> 
> Now the Palestinians only exist as part of Israel terrorist propaganda campaign.


The Palestinians have denied 🙅‍♀️ the existence of the Israelis 
As per Hamas PM in 2013 Haniyeh
“ We had two Wars but Palestine did not and will not recognize 🇮🇱 Israel “


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

.




P F Tinmore said:


> The Oslo Accords never mentioned a state. Nor did it mention rights or international law. They were based on the Bantustan constitutions in S. Africa. That is what the Palestinians got. Bantustans. The PA is a Bantustan government.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct.  I say again, that is correct.  It established Areas:  "A". "B". and "C"

 In Area C, during the first phase of redeployment Israel will transfer to the Council civil powers and responsibilities not relating to territory, as set out in Annex III.

The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred.

The Arab Palestinians DID agree to the Special Provision over Area "C."



P F Tinmore said:


> I wasn't talking about 1967.


*(COMMENT)*

Yeh, I am easily confused since you do not articulate your time frame.   But anything prior to the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the British Mandate.  There was no Israel.

Anything after the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the, including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper War was a continuation of the Arab League-Israeli War.  The first Peace Treaty was not signed until:

◈ *Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace* (1979) •​​THEN CAME:​​◈ *Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel* (1980)•​​◈ *Golan Heights Law (1981)* •​​◈ *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I)*  (1993)​​◈ *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty* (1994) •​​◈ *Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II*) (1995) •​
◈ *Letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon* (2000) •​
Some of the Links do not work because the UN took-down the database for routine maintenance (so they say).  But the peace process really did not start until 1979; beginning with the Treaty with Egypt. 





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Yeh, I am easily confused since you do not articulate your time frame. But anything prior to the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the British Mandate. There was no Israel.


Yes, but the settler colonial project had already begun.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The Palestinians have denied 🙅‍♀️ the existence of the Israelis
> As per Hamas PM in 2013 Haniyeh
> “ We had two Wars but Palestine did not and will not recognize 🇮🇱 Israel “


Thank you 🙏 for agreeing with me that they will not recognize Israel. Just add that to the list of why the Israelis will never 👎 capitulate to their Demands !🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Anything after the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the, including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper War was a continuation of the Arab League-Israeli War. The first Peace Treaty was not signed until:
> 
> ◈ *Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace* (1979) •


Had nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Had nothing to do with Palestine.


What Tinmore “ forgets” 🤥 is that until 67 the W Bank and E Jerusalem were considered part of Jordan 🇯🇴 and Gaza part of Egypt 🇪🇬


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> What Tinmore “ forgets” 🤥 is that until 67 the W Bank and E Jerusalem were considered part of Jordan 🇯🇴 and Gaza part of Egypt 🇪🇬


I’m so glad Tinmore finds those fact FUNNY. Was was recognized as OFFICIALLY part of Jordan 🇯🇴 which they lost 😞 in 67 is now part of ISRAEL 🇮🇱 and that will never change.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> I’m so glad Tinmore finds those fact FUNNY. Was was recognized as OFFICIALLY part of Jordan 🇯🇴 which they lost 😞 in 67 is now part of ISRAEL 🇮🇱 and that will never change.


Tinmore can deny it all he wants but the W Bank was FORMALLY annexed to Jordan 4/24/1950’. Guess who’s laughing now? 🇮🇱🇮🇱👍😆


----------



## P F Tinmore

Transcending the Israel Lobby at Home and Abroad Conference - Interviews by Dr. Michael Spath​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: Resisting Israeli Land Grabs​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*MEMORY:*  (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • *ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C"* • which *assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"*.


P F Tinmore said:


> Webinar: Resisting Israeli Land Grabs​


*(COMMENT)*

While you are continuously accusing the Israelis of wrongdoing, it is just a damn shame that you don't mention how the Arab Palestinians (_in the form of the internationally recognized sole representative of the Palestinian People_) simply decided to unilaterally abandon the agreements and expand their campaign of terror and intimidation.

And don't start with this phony-baloney argument that the Oslo Accords were illegal.  There were numerous parties that observed the proceedings and understood the international law.  It is only because the Arab Palestinians chose not to fulfill their part of the agreement that has brought them to this point in history.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose to extend the Arab-Israeli Conflict for another 28 years.  Every casualty the Arab Palestinians have suffered in that time can be laid at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP has brought the definition of Islamic _martyrdom_ to a new meaning.
PA/Fatah: Terror is the "path to victory," Dead terrorists “are our heroes… who illuminate the path for our people… We all need to be like [them],”​Just what kind of sociopath appludes conflict and promotes the advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.   And then claim that they have some kind of speical dispensation that they may consider Jews "impure" and "the world's dogs."  Just what kind of people consider themselves above the law and declare  that it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews.  And what kind of psychopath is it that claims "Murdering 12 Israeli children and 25 adults was a "natural human expression that all human laws guarantee."

I think that the ostrich effect at the Hague (Courts) is, by assisting the Arab Palestinian Legal action, have lost their mind and are insuring that the trust and confidence in the International Legal System to do the right thing, is degraded and slowly being lost.  But just because the Hague assists and promotes HoAP policies and activities does NOT give the HoAP any special rights to promote their death machine.

Just My Thought,





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> *SUBTOPIC*: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *MEMORY:*  (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • *ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C"* • which *assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"*.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While you are continuously accusing the Israelis of wrongdoing, it is just a damn shame that you don't mention how the Arab Palestinians (_in the form of the internationally recognized sole representative of the Palestinian People_) simply decided to unilaterally abandon the agreements and expand their campaign of terror and intimidation.
> 
> And don't start with this phony-baloney argument that the Oslo Accords were illegal.  There were numerous parties that observed the proceedings and understood the international law.  It is only because the Arab Palestinians chose not to fulfill their part of the agreement that has brought them to this point in history.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose to extend the Arab-Israeli Conflict for another 28 years.  Every casualty the Arab Palestinians have suffered in that time can be laid at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).
> 
> The HoAP has brought the definition of Islamic _martyrdom_ to a new meaning.
> PA/Fatah: Terror is the "path to victory," Dead terrorists “are our heroes… who illuminate the path for our people… We all need to be like [them],”​Just what kind of sociopath appludes conflict and promotes the advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.   And then claim that they have some kind of speical dispensation that they may consider Jews "impure" and "the world's dogs."  Just what kind of people consider themselves above the law and declare  that it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews.  And what kind of psychopath is it that claims "Murdering 12 Israeli children and 25 adults was a "natural human expression that all human laws guarantee."
> 
> I think that the ostrich effect at the Hague (Courts) is, by assisting the Arab Palestinian Legal action, have lost their mind and are insuring that the trust and confidence in the International Legal System to do the right thing, is degraded and slowly being lost.  But just because the Hague assists and promotes HoAP policies and activities does NOT give the HoAP any special rights to promote their death machine.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


WOW, nice rant.

Now how about those Israeli land grabs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem on the Verge: Dispossession & Violence in Sheikh Jarrah​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, nice rant.
> 
> Now how about those Israeli land grabs?


*(COMMENT)*

What "land grabs?"  You are implying that the Israelis do not have the pre-approved authority by Agreement with the Arab Palestinians.

I guess you did not read it very well.  (*ARTICLE IV  Special Provisions concerning Area C*)
Assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

Since you know so much.  Tell me which one of these authorities or Special Provisions are you contesting?  Within Appendix I, there are 40 Articles covered (_in addition to Article IV(4)  Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order_).

It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that most of these complaints (like you made here) are fairly frivolous.  You cannot even express what authority the Arab Palestinians have that was violated.  And that is because you cannot describe the nature of the event.

I suspect that out of the hundreds and hundreds of complaints made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), a few might have some foundation.  BUT_*!*_ Given the sheer number of "Cry Wolf" allegations made, at a certain point, even the best of nations would begin to ignore the complaints that have no supporting documentation.  And an _Aljazeera News Article_ (_a hostile media outlet_) does not count as substantiation (_truth and transparency_).

Just My Thought,




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".


As an occupying power. The rules of occupation still apply. No destruction of property. No stealing land. No population transfers. Etc....


----------



## P F Tinmore

Christian Zionism in the Mainline Church and American Civil Religion​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are going to believe that, no matter who tells you different.  WHY?  Because it does not advance the insurgent cause of action.



P F Tinmore said:


> As an occupying power. The rules of occupation still apply. No destruction of property. No stealing land. No population transfers. Etc....


*(COMMENT)*

A question you must answer is: who's land is being occupied?

That portion of the West Bank that is currently labeled "Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)" is not talking about territory that was once sovereign under the Palestinian People.  It was talking about the territory Annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom on the vote by the Jordanian Parliament - which consisted of a 50% representation by the West Bank Arab Palestinians (or formerly labeled as "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."

People (pro-Palestinian and Hostile Arab Palestinians) have a tendency to forget that the territory in its entirety has been labeled "Palestine" since the first Palestine Order in Council.

1. This Order may be cited as "_*The Palestine Order in Council*_, 1922."​The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine*.​ 
The territory was not called "Palestine" because it was once under Palestinian Rule or because the people were known "Palestinians."  It was the name adopted by the Allied Supreme Council at the 1920 San Remo Conference from the Balfour Declaration.

When the West Bank was occupied by the Israelis, it was not occupying territory under the rule of the " "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."  It was occupied as territory that was under the rule of the Hashemite Kingdom that was a consequence of the exercise of "self-determination" by the  "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."  

It does not matter what the interpretation is or was.  What matters is that the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.  Whether any other state recognizes the annexation is immaterial.  No country actually stepped into the situation in order to prevent the action, and no country stepped into the situation to actively reverse the annexation.  Reality rules the day.

In 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon (cut all ties) with its territory west of the Jordan River, there was no Government established by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to fill the breach.  By default, the Israelis took charge.

Again, just to be clear:  The territory called the West Bank was NOT under Arab Palestinian governmental administration when the Israelis took charge.


Just My Thought,





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> *SUBTOPIC*: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are going to believe that, no matter who tells you different.  WHY?  Because it does not advance the insurgent cause of action.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A question you must answer is: who's land is being occupied?
> 
> That portion of the West Bank that is currently labeled "Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)" is not talking about territory that was once sovereign under the Palestinian People.  It was talking about the territory Annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom on the vote by the Jordanian Parliament - which consisted of a 50% representation by the West Bank Arab Palestinians (or formerly labeled as "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."
> 
> People (pro-Palestinian and Hostile Arab Palestinians) have a tendency to forget that the territory in its entirety has been labeled "Palestine" since the first Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> 1. This Order may be cited as "_*The Palestine Order in Council*_, 1922."​The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine*.​
> The territory was not called "Palestine" because it was once under Palestinian Rule or because the people were known "Palestinians."  It was the name adopted by the Allied Supreme Council at the 1920 San Remo Conference from the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> When the West Bank was occupied by the Israelis, it was not occupying territory under the rule of the " "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."  It was occupied as territory that was under the rule of the Hashemite Kingdom that was a consequence of the exercise of "self-determination" by the  "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory."
> 
> It does not matter what the interpretation is or was.  What matters is that the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.  Whether any other state recognizes the annexation is immaterial.  No country actually stepped into the situation in order to prevent the action, and no country stepped into the situation to actively reverse the annexation.  Reality rules the day.
> 
> In 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon (cut all ties) with its territory west of the Jordan River, there was no Government established by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to fill the breach.  By default, the Israelis took charge.
> 
> Again, just to be clear:  The territory called the West Bank was NOT under Arab Palestinian governmental administration when the Israelis took charge.
> 
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


He keeps ignoring the fact that in 1950 it was FORMALLY recognized the W Bank was part of Jordan 🇯🇴 and while it may not have been “ formal” it was just accepted that Gaza was part of Egypt 🇪🇬. He can’t get over the fact that Israel 🇮🇱 will ALWAYS have access to their Holy Sites 🇮🇱👍


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> People (pro-Palestinian and Hostile Arab Palestinians) have a tendency to forget that the territory in its entirety has been labeled "Palestine" since the first Palestine Order in Council.


Why was Palestine called Palestine? Well, duh

The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns.


> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the *Palestinian people in Palestine*, including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and *sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mideastweb.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *




It doesn't say state. It doesn't say government. It says "the Palestinian people in Palestine." The people of the place have the sovereignty. The people from some place else do not.

You seem to think that if a people do not have a government or military power that they do not have rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Story of the Ongoing Nakba Inscribed on Women's Lives from Sheik Jarrah to 1948 - Rev. Loren McGail​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Is this a land Grab (as you suggest) or is this the Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For the damn umpteenth thousand time - No one is arguing that Arab Palestinians cannot take action to become a state.    They have that right.  But they cannot covent/take territory in which are articulated in the Montevideo Convention (1933).


			
				MP Ferreira-Snyman** said:
			
		

> ◈   Sovereignty is the most extensive form of jurisdiction under international law. In general terms, it denotes full and unchallengable power over a piece of territory and all the persons from time to time therein.​SOURCE:  Senior Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence, University of South Africa (BIuris LLB LLM)​


​The evolution of state sovereignty: A historical overview by Ferreira-Snyman
**Bodley “Weakening the principle of sovereignty in international law: The international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” 1993 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics  pg419. MacCormick Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth (1999) 127 provides the explanation (the quote above) of the term “sovereignty” by distinguishing between legal and political sovereignty: “[W]hereas a 'merely legal conception',​


P F Tinmore said:


> It doesn't say state. It doesn't say government. It says "the Palestinian people in Palestine." The people of the place have the sovereignty. The people from some place else do not.
> 
> You seem to think that if a people do not have a government or military power that they do not have rights.


*(COMMENT)*

Like the principle by the same name, --- the rights and freedoms may be exercised unless they exercised of these rights interferes with another’s right.

You may think that the "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" had some prior claim to sovereignty over the territory.  This is simply NOT true.  By Treaty, the Turkey Republic/Ottoman Empire, which forfeited their claim as a consequence of the outcome of World War One, renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories, to the Allied Powers representative.    *REMEMBER*:  The "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were residing in the Occupied Enemy Territory under the joint administration of the British-French.

The idea that the "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" does not pass the smell test.  In the early 20th Century, it was not the custom to reward the habitually residents in the Occupied Enemy Territory.  If rewarding the residences of the Occupied Enemy Territory somehow makes sense to --- that the predecessors to the people who call themselves Palestinians today, please demonstrate how that made sense anywhere in the in the controlled territory after the war.

Two more minor points need to be made.

◈   What were the civil and political rights that are demanded by laws.​How do you know that the "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were denied something?​◈   The language that you cite does not come from any law in force.​Tell us what binding law was violated?​When did this law go into force?​





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Opinion | There’s Apartheid in the Holy Land, but Not in Israel

*Pro Palestinians are against " Apartheid?"      *


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

What Palestinians Want — in Their Own Words — When They Say ‘From the River to the Sea’

I actually managed to speak to someone who belongs to the " JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE" and asked what assurances the Israelis would have as a minority that they would have some voice in Gov't, religious freedom including Holy Sites and I DID NOT GET A RESPONSE .   I wonder why????


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Should there be a " Palestinian State?"  

In Plain Language: Do the Palestinians deserve a state?



Amnesty’s US director: Israel shouldn’t exist ‘as a state for the Jewish people’

Who is this " amnesty us director" that he can read the minds of the Jews in the US and decide HE doesn't believe them??   He clams Israel should exist as " a safe Jewish Space" and its a place that the Jewish people can call " home?"   And pray tell. who would be in charge of ANY JEWISH IMMIGRATION POLICIES?     THE PALESTINIANS OF COURSE !   lol


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Like the principle by the same name, --- the rights and freedoms may be exercised unless they exercised of these rights interferes with another’s right.


Exactly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Should there be a " Palestinian State?"
> 
> In Plain Language: Do the Palestinians deserve a state?
> 
> 
> 
> Amnesty’s US director: Israel shouldn’t exist ‘as a state for the Jewish people’
> 
> Who is this " amnesty us director" that he can read the minds of the Jews in the US and decide HE doesn't believe them??   He clams Israel should exist as " a safe Jewish Space" and its a place that the Jewish people can call " home?"   And pray tell. who would be in charge of ANY JEWISH IMMIGRATION POLICIES?     THE PALESTINIANS OF COURSE !   lol


There already is.

Next question.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> There already is.
> 
> Next question.


What are their “ boundaries? So there should be a “ Palestinian State” with No Israelis allowed next to a Non Jewish State ( Israel) where they in time the Palestinians can be the majority with the Israelis having no voice in Gov’t or Religious Freedom? 😆Keep 💭 Dreaming 🛌. 🇮🇱👍


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And don't start with this phony-baloney argument that the Oslo Accords were illegal. There were numerous parties that observed the proceedings and understood the international law.


Funny, international law was not mentioned (avoided) in Oslo.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *REMEMBER*: The "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were residing in the Occupied Enemy Territory under the joint administration of the British-French.


So?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*:   Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I suspect none of the points I have ever made, no matter how much they resemble the ground truth, will sway you.

The people "identifying" themselves Arab Palestinians, never made one valid attempt to establish any self-governing institutions, frontiers or a nation that did not mimic a process that the Jewish/Israeli people had not already taken.  The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the nation building processes.







P F Tinmore said:


> So?


*(COMMENT)*

Wow, every little point needs to be explained.

The point was that:  The Israelis did not take anything away from, what later became known as Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians are either:

◈   "formerly Turkish Subjects habitually resident in the territory"​*- OR -*​◈   "formerly citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"​





P F Tinmore said:


> Funny, international law was not mentioned (avoided) in Oslo.


*(COMMENT)*

The outside observers where on hand and as witness to watch-out for the Arab Palestinian Interest.

Anytime an agreement is made such as this, the _*Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*_ (1969) comes into play.  And by implication - International Law is inferred.

*Article 2 • Use of terms*​1.  For the purposes of the present Convention:​​(a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and *whatever its particular designation*;​
I don't even understand why you mentioned this.

So it is written,




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ What were the civil and political rights that are demanded by laws.How do you know that the "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were denied something?


Here is where you ignore actual history.

The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.

The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.

Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.

So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the nation building processes.


The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the Jewish national home building processes.

There, I fixed it for you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Holy Land Grab: The Battle for Jerusalem | Rewind​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*(PREFACE)  *This entire response is screwed-up.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers made certain decisions.  But they did not decide how the entirety of the former Ottoman/Turkish Republic would unfold.

In fact, when the establish the Administrative Government of Palestine, they did not at the time (1920) and (1922) exactly where the using Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920 *(Article 8) to set the separation of French Administration and the British Administration.  Previously we discussed this: (see *Posting #631*)
BUT_*! *_ No matter what you invoke from yesterday year, the current agreements have overtaken all those relics documents.


P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 is about nationality.  It does NOT transfer any territory.  The applicable Article 16 is the renouncement by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.
> 
> So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?


*(COMMENT)*

Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well.  The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate.  And Judgment #5 was just such a recognition.  And the Court found the British libel for the debt because they setup the government.

The best explanation comes The *UN Legal Counsel Office* that says:




What you are trying to imply, and have been trying for several years, was that there is some authority our there someplace that created the State of Palestine.  I will agree that something happened in December 2012, but its clear, it was an entity prior to that.

There is a mention in the UN Yearbook for the period 1947-1948



Just a response to some misinformation.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Here is where you ignore actual history.
> 
> The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.
> 
> Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.
> 
> So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?


Circling back to your invented version of history wherein the Treaty of Lausanne invented your invented “country of Pal’istan” while inventing “new states”, none of which exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(PREFACE)  *This entire response is screwed-up.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers made certain decisions.  But they did not decide how the entirety of the former Ottoman/Turkish Republic would unfold.
> 
> In fact, when the establish the Administrative Government of Palestine, they did not at the time (1920) and (1922) exactly where the using Treaty #564 is the *Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920 *(Article 8) to set the separation of French Administration and the British Administration.  Previously we discussed this: (see *Posting #631*)
> BUT_*! *_ No matter what you invoke from yesterday year, the current agreements have overtaken all those relics documents.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 30 is about nationality.  It does NOT transfer any territory.  The applicable Article 16 is the renouncement by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well.  The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate.  And Judgment #5 was just such a recognition.  And the Court found the British libel for the debt because they setup the government.
> 
> The best explanation comes The *UN Legal Counsel Office* that says:
> 
> View attachment 616292
> What you are trying to imply, and have been trying for several years, was that there is some authority our there someplace that created the State of Palestine.  I will agree that something happened in December 2012, but its clear, it was an entity prior to that.
> 
> There is a mention in the UN Yearbook for the period 1947-1948
> 
> View attachment 616307​Just a response to some misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


The predicted duck.

The UN is still pushing the never was to be two state solution.

What law states that the Palestinians must agree to a two state solution inside Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well. The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate.


The Mandate was not Palestine. It was not a place. It was an administration to work on the behalf of, and in the best interest of, the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: IHRA and Ending the Palestine Exception''​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine - Jeremy Corbyn & Mustafa Barghouti in Conversation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 30 is about nationality. It does NOT transfer any territory.


Article 16 released the territory from Ottoman sovereignty. Article 30 said where it went.

What am I missing?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*: Treaty of Lausanne
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*(PREFACE) * I simply do not know how much more simple this might be explained.






P F Tinmore said:


> Article 16 released the territory from Ottoman sovereignty. Article 30 said where it went.
> 
> What am I missing?


*(COMMENT)

SECTION I  TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.*

*ARTICLE 3*.​From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​(I ) With Syria:​


​This Section of the treaty deals with all the major territorial issues.  For the purposes of this discussion, the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are all (roughly) contained within the former Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, but Israel (as it is today) stretches across portions of the former Sanjaks called Beruit, Acre, Nablus, Jerusalem, and Maan.  Israel had territorial frontiers with WWI era Lebanon, Syria (including present-day Jordan), the Hijaz, and Egypt.  However, the treaty itself had implications over a range many times larger than the boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers.  

*SECTION II    NATIONALITY.*

The purpose of Article 30 was, to that extent possible, to eliminate the potential problems pertaining to refugees and stateless people that may arise.  The people did not have to move, the people would just become nationals of the new sovereignty.  Article 30 pertained to outcomes across the entirety of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  And what it made clear was that no matter how the vast territory was sliced, diced, and divided up, the people would assume the nationality of that covered in the resulting political subdivisions.  But Article 30 did not transfer either the people or territory itself; only nationality.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> *SUBTOPIC*: Treaty of Lausanne
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(PREFACE) * I simply do not know how much more simple this might be explained.
> 
> View attachment 616639
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> SECTION I  TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.*
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*.​From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​(I ) With Syria:​
> View attachment 616651​This Section of the treaty deals with all the major territorial issues.  For the purposes of this discussion, the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are all (roughly) contained within the former Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, but Israel (as it is today) stretches across portions of the former Sanjaks called Beruit, Acre, Nablus, Jerusalem, and Maan.  Israel had territorial frontiers with WWI era Lebanon, Syria (including present-day Jordan), the Hijaz, and Egypt.  However, the treaty itself had implications over a range many times larger than the boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers.
> 
> *SECTION II    NATIONALITY.*
> 
> The purpose of Article 30 was, to that extent possible, to eliminate the potential problems pertaining to refugees and stateless people that may arise.  The people did not have to move, the people would just become nationals of the new sovereignty.  Article 30 pertained to outcomes across the entirety of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  And what it made clear was that no matter how the vast territory was sliced, diced, and divided up, the people would assume the nationality of that covered in the resulting political subdivisions.  But Article 30 did not transfer either the people or territory itself; only nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.*




Of course the people and land did not "go" anywhere. It was a transfer of sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire to Palestine. And, of course, the people inside that defined territory are the sovereigns of that territory.

What part of that confuses you?


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇵🇸 Palestine in a Nutshell | Ep02: Home Demolitions: Politics of Dispossession​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Treaty of Lausanne
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*(PREFACE) *Yes, I understand what you highlighted; but do you?



P F Tinmore said:


> It was a transfer of sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire to Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Your interpretation is 100% Wrong.

◈    First, Article 30 tells how to handle nationality, not how territory is handled.​​◈   Second, nowhere does it mention a transfer of specific territory to any specific people; let alone - former Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory.​​◈   Thirdly, The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory and formerly under the responsibility of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(today's Arab Palestinians) were not a party to the treaty.  The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory were not named as a beneficiary of any territory.  Not were the former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory the previous sovereign power over the territory.​
You can believe what you want.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  The treaty and its interpretations can only be challenged by parties to the treaty. 

The three principal obligations of the British Administration were defined in the Mandate for Palestine, as they were established by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 (NOT the Treaty of Lausanne).

*(i)* the creation of conditions that would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH); ​​*(ii)* the creation of conditions which would secure the. development of self-governing institutions; and ​​*(iii)* the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

I can only offer you the primary view, as the British interpreted the Mandate, is that the Mandate specifically mentions a JNH.  The Mandate does NOT obligate the British Administration to establish an Arab nation or other self-governing institution, except for the Hashemite Emerati.  Further, by 1923, in which a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be "brought into cooperation with the government."  
The Arab leaders declined that offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  And for more than a century, the policy of "non-cooperation" was to set the tone for Arab Palestinian peace efforts.

SO, we then go back to the initial three obligations set by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920:

*(i)* Jewish National Home (JNH); ​​*(ii)* development of self-governing institutions; ​​*(iii)* civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers did not set an objective, goal, or obligation to create another Arab self-governing institution.  And even when the British Administrator tried to extend the olive branch, it was rejected.

*(Ω∑)*

Believe what you will.  It has been characteristic of the Arab Palestinians to play the part of the victim since the conclusion of the Great War (well over) a century ago.  I just cannot figure out how the Arab Palestinians expect to get any forward traction.  Do they think their policies to date have worked well for them?
​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Uncle Bobbie's Presents: Marc Lamont Hill & Mitchell Plitnick "Except For Palestine" Book Launch​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Treaty of Lausanne
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(PREFACE) *Yes, I understand what you highlighted; but do you?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your interpretation is 100% Wrong.
> 
> ◈    First, Article 30 tells how to handle nationality, not how territory is handled.​​◈   Second, nowhere does it mention a transfer of specific territory to any specific people; let alone - former Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory.​​◈   Thirdly, The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory and formerly under the responsibility of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(today's Arab Palestinians) were not a party to the treaty.  The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory were not named as a beneficiary of any territory.  Not were the former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory the previous sovereign power over the territory.​
> You can believe what you want.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  The treaty and its interpretations can only be challenged by parties to the treaty.
> 
> The three principal obligations of the British Administration were defined in the Mandate for Palestine, as they were established by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 (NOT the Treaty of Lausanne).
> 
> *(i)* the creation of conditions that would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH); ​​*(ii)* the creation of conditions which would secure the. development of self-governing institutions; and ​​*(iii)* the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> I can only offer you the primary view, as the British interpreted the Mandate, is that the Mandate specifically mentions a JNH.  The Mandate does NOT obligate the British Administration to establish an Arab nation or other self-governing institution, except for the Hashemite Emerati.  Further, by 1923, in which a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be "brought into cooperation with the government."
> The Arab leaders declined that offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  And for more than a century, the policy of "non-cooperation" was to set the tone for Arab Palestinian peace efforts.
> 
> SO, we then go back to the initial three obligations set by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920:
> 
> *(i)* Jewish National Home (JNH); ​​*(ii)* development of self-governing institutions; ​​*(iii)* civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
> The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers did not set an objective, goal, or obligation to create another Arab self-governing institution.  And even when the British Administrator tried to extend the olive branch, it was rejected.
> 
> *(Ω∑)*
> 
> Believe what you will.  It has been characteristic of the Arab Palestinians to play the part of the victim since the conclusion of the Great War (well over) a century ago.  I just cannot figure out how the Arab Palestinians expect to get any forward traction.  Do they think their policies to date have worked well for them?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


This leads back to a previously ducked question.


P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.
> 
> So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?


BTW, San Remo was not a treaty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jeanne Trabulsi: The fight against Israeli propaganda in Virginia textbooks​


----------



## P F Tinmore

THE OCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Yousef Munayyer, Nayyera Haq on MSNBC on Tlaib, Omar, Israel/Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lessons from Palestine: Policing, Prisons, Surveillance and Resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel’s Continuing Policy of Palestinian Dispossession: From Sheikh Jarrah to Al-Naqab​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Practical Dimension of The Struggle for Equality by Palestinian Citizens in Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Apartheid, the Supreme Court, and Land Confiscation: The Case of Masafer Yatta​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question:  "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Apology:  I apologize for taking so long t get back to you on this question of "Authority" and "Foreign Powers." 

*The Amphiboly*:  The introduction of a "foreign power" - "authority" - "nature and complexion" of the formulation of certain agreements.


>


Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...



Under *Treaty Law* (Vienna 1969), a "Treaty" is defined as an accordance with the four characteristics.



◈ An international agreement.

◈ Concluded between States.

◈ Written form.

◈ Governed by international law.

The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria. You may not like it, but that is one component of the "amphigory" that is so often twisted by propaganda, that it is not recognized. Up and until the Exchange of Letters on Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition (1993) in connection with the Oslo Accords, there was no mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - sole legitimate representative).

So, we clean this up as a non-issue (the status of the San Remo Convention). The San Remo Convention is made (essentially) in the same fashion as the 9 core international human rights instruments or the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (_just to name a few_).
As for the meat if the Ambiguity, we must look at the intent of the Allied Powers in the early 1920s, when the power was established. You will note, very clearly, that the victors of the Great War (WWI) begin the opening of the Preamble to the Mandate with the statement: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed."

But as the victors, no one at that time had questioned the "authority" of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers."

There is a mistake in the facts here:

◈ Palestine was a recognized as a territory, BUT NOT as a self-governing institution.

◈ Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the "*territory of Palestine*."

The Government of Palestine was the international umbrella under which the inhabitance, economy, liability, international travel, etc... could be assigned. Example (the one pro-Arab Palestinians try to use as proof:

*A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions*
*• *Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)​In the first paragraph of the Judgement read in part:​​"the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the *Government of Palestine* and consequently a1sc on the part of *His Britannic Majesty's Government*"​
Pro-Palestinian factions try to use Judgment #5 as some sort of recognition of the "State" of Palestine. This is not the case at all. The Permanent Court of International Justice is merely stating that Briton has a liability. The Government of Palestine was, as of 26 March 1925, was not self-governing. The implication here that "the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings" represents some manner of recognition that the Arab Palestinians have some sort of special recognition as a state is simply incorrect. The Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the creation of self-governing institution. The British Government during the period 1922 thru 1948 Palestine was govern by the High Commissioner staff consisting exclusively of British officials.

I hope we can consider this question resolved. While technically, the British Civil Administration was supported by British Military Forces, they were not a true foreign force since the Arab Palestinians declined to accept self-government and abandon their potential for governance.

.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...


San Remo was not a land treaty. A land treaty defines the territory and creates borders. Nothing like that happened at San Remo.

The Allied Powers/Mandates never claimed sovereignty over the territories. 

So then, who had sovereignty?


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Nakba & its Generational Impact on Palestinians: Memory, Identity, & a Future Rooted in Justice​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Defective Question:  "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Apology:  I apologize for taking so long t get back to you on this question of "Authority" and "Foreign Powers."
> 
> *The Amphiboly*:  The introduction of a "foreign power" - "authority" - "nature and complexion" of the formulation of certain agreements.
> 
> Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...
> 
> 
> 
> Under *Treaty Law* (Vienna 1969), a "Treaty" is defined as an accordance with the four characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ An international agreement.
> 
> ◈ Concluded between States.
> 
> ◈ Written form.
> 
> ◈ Governed by international law.
> 
> The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria. You may not like it, but that is one component of the "amphigory" that is so often twisted by propaganda, that it is not recognized. Up and until the Exchange of Letters on Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition (1993) in connection with the Oslo Accords, there was no mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - sole legitimate representative).
> 
> So, we clean this up as a non-issue (the status of the San Remo Convention). The San Remo Convention is made (essentially) in the same fashion as the 9 core international human rights instruments or the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (_just to name a few_).
> As for the meat if the Ambiguity, we must look at the intent of the Allied Powers in the early 1920s, when the power was established. You will note, very clearly, that the victors of the Great War (WWI) begin the opening of the Preamble to the Mandate with the statement: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed."
> 
> But as the victors, no one at that time had questioned the "authority" of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers."
> 
> There is a mistake in the facts here:
> 
> ◈ Palestine was a recognized as a territory, BUT NOT as a self-governing institution.
> 
> ◈ Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the "*territory of Palestine*."
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the international umbrella under which the inhabitance, economy, liability, international travel, etc... could be assigned. Example (the one pro-Arab Palestinians try to use as proof:
> 
> *A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions*
> *• *Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)​In the first paragraph of the Judgement read in part:​​"the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the *Government of Palestine* and consequently a1sc on the part of *His Britannic Majesty's Government*"​
> Pro-Palestinian factions try to use Judgment #5 as some sort of recognition of the "State" of Palestine. This is not the case at all. The Permanent Court of International Justice is merely stating that Briton has a liability. The Government of Palestine was, as of 26 March 1925, was not self-governing. The implication here that "the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings" represents some manner of recognition that the Arab Palestinians have some sort of special recognition as a state is simply incorrect. The Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the creation of self-governing institution. The British Government during the period 1922 thru 1948 Palestine was govern by the High Commissioner staff consisting exclusively of British officials.
> 
> I hope we can consider this question resolved. While technically, the British Civil Administration was supported by British Military Forces, they were not a true foreign force since the Arab Palestinians declined to accept self-government and abandon their potential for governance.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> ◈ Concluded between States.





RoccoR said:


> The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria.


So then, Oslo was an agreement between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  You are trying to make new law.  A treaty is as it comes to be defined by law, in Article 2 of the Convention.  It 9s universally recognized.  Do NOT assume you can alter the agreed-upon convention.  Now the terms of the agreement are spelled out in the body of the agreement.



P F Tinmore said:


> San Remo was not a land treaty. A land treaty defines the territory and creates borders. Nothing like that happened at San Remo.
> 
> The Allied Powers/Mandates never claimed sovereignty over the territories.
> 
> So then, who had sovereignty?


*(COMMENT)*

The meaning of sovereignty has many facets to it.  But ONE of the criteria is:

*sovereignty *  Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  *Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State.**​
In the case of the post-War terms set by the victors, represented by the Allied Power, established a Mandate.  In the case of Palestine, the British Mandate was subject to oversight.  It is stipulated in Article 24 of the Mandate, that:
ARTICLE  24:​The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.​​The question of "the bearer of supreme authority" sets the question of how this impacts the true "ruling authority" over the West Bank Territory.  THUS, it is clear that the issue of sovereignty had not been resolved at the time of the Mandate termination.  And the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were still considered the non-self-governing territory.

For the last century-plus, each time the Arab Palestinians were invited to help in the establishment of self-governing institutions they declined.

*Footnote for SOURCE Material:*
* Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed.
© ˝ 2009 pgs 263/264 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> So then, Oslo was an agreement between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.


*(RESPONSE)*

The Oslo Accords was a process overseen by the International Community.  There was an exchange of letters concerning mutual recognition.

The Oslo Accords were an Agreement established between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Masafer Yatta​
People live here: the 918 firing zone and threat of expulsion​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Launch of Israel/Palestine: In Search of the Rule of Law Conference Souvenir Brochure​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Beyond The Two-State Solution, by Jonathan Kuttab. Interactive webinar.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Professor Abdel Takriti on Decolonising the Study of Palestine 71 Years after the Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Miko Peled’s vivid, intense, and detailed account of the case of the Holy Land Foundation 5 proves without a shadow of a doubt that it was a political case in its entirety.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Edward Ahmed Mitchell: How to fight joint Israel/lobby espionage & infiltration.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Oppression of Palestinians: It is a sin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Susan Abulhawa, "Words Have Power"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Myths - Dr. Ilan Pappe​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A conversation with Angela Davis & Ilan Pappé​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Donald Courter Interviews CoFounder of Palestine International Solidarity Organization Huwaida Arraf​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kareem Dennis (Lowkey) - Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇵🇸 Palestine in a Nutshell | Ep02: Home Demolitions: Politics of Dispossession​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The U.S. Media Has A Palestine Problem​


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇵🇸 Palestine in the US: What’s Behind the New Dynamics​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel, Palestine, and Canada's Commitment to International Law​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Imagining Together a Shared, One-State Reality" w/ Peter Beinart & Yousef Munayyer​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Politics, Arab Normalization, & Escalating Violence: A Deep Dive with Dalia Hatuqa​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Decolonizing Knowledge on Palestine | Ahlam Muhtaseb | TEDxMSJC​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Statements in support of "1948: Creation and Catastrophe" and council vote​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Meet the Directors! Live Q&A with "1948 Creation and Catastrophe" Directors​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Deadly Exchange Virtual Rally: This is How We Win​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat: Stop “Both Sides”-ing Israel and Palestine | The Dig Ep 2​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel, Hamas, and Civilian Casualties | Q+A​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
*SUBTOPIC*: The False Outcry Made By Palestinians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You can only state the obvious so many times.  If they do not want to listen and address the specific Humanitarian Law in Play, then they should be treated accordingly.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel, Hamas, and Civilian Casualties | Q+A


*(COMMENT)*

Under Humanitarian Law the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is subject to prosecution if they:

◈  Commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈  Commit an offense which damages the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by the Occupying Power.​​◈   Commit an offense espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.​​ ◈  Commit an offense which intentionally caused the death of one or more persons​​◈  Commit an offense which is involves the intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​​ ◈  Commit an offense which intentionally involves Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.​​◈  Commit an offense which cause the death of protected persons and which could have been avoided by relocating the attack site away from densely populated areas.​​◈  Commit an offense which cause the death of protected persons and which could have been avoided by relocating civilian persons and objects under its control away from the vicinity of military objectives.​​◈  Commit an offense which cause the death of protected persons by attempting to use them as human shields is prohibited.  “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.​
You should really try some other approach.  I, for one, am tired of hearing about how bad the Arab Palestinians suffer after committing the criminal activities mentioned here.  Criminal Acts directed against The State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → intimidate the Israeli population and attempting to compel the State of Israel to do (*or to abstain from doing*) some act that furthers the Arab Palestinian criminal cause or objective.

*(ONE ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION)*

You might have noticed that the the loud mouth woman in the red jack corrected herself by saying very skillfully and quickly lowering her voice and saying "settler apartheid."  

There are a couple points revealed here.

1.  The current State of Israel is NOT an "Apartheid State."  However she very correctly applies it to the settlements in Area "C" which are partitioned-off from the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

2.  The Arab Palestinians attempt to retroactively apply the Law of Apartheid to events that occurred between the establishment of Israel and when Miss Israel, Rina Mor, wins the title of Miss Universe (or maybe you prefer the day that Israel received its first F-15 (Eagle).  Both of them are beautiful in their own right.  But Article 12 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR) (this is the International Law that the Arab Palestinians most cited on the matter of "Apartheid" and "Right of Return") did not become effective until 1976.  Such law cannot be retroactively applied.

*Article 24
Non-retroactivity ratione personae*​No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.​
3.  The loud mouth woman in the red jack also conveniently failed to point out that under International Humanitarian Law, " The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant."

4.   Now we all know that the Arab Palestinians have a tough time with this, but you have to remember that:

(*Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974*), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • *ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C"* • which *assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"*.​
There were a couple more thing I  could comment upon, but I think these are the four baggies.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Rises: The Ongoing Resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, the Squad & How the Right To Resist Imperial Violence Is Universal, w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The End of Zionism: Thoughts and Next Steps​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> The End of Zionism: Thoughts and Next Steps​


Yawn….  No Jewish State but a “ Palestinian State?”  😆 😂 😆 In your dreams 🙏


----------



## P F Tinmore

Greg Lukianoff on the Battle for Free Speech on College Campuses​


----------



## P F Tinmore

An interview of Dr. Golbarg Bashi by Dr. Michael Spath​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peter Beinart in conversation with Advisory Council of Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine, Jan 11/2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Ultimate Ally: The Past Decade of US-Israel Relations​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections Podcast Episode 7: Palestine at the Crossroads with Hanan Ashrawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Christians in the Holy Land" with Jonathan Kuttab and Naim Ateek​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> "Christians in the Holy Land" with Jonathan Kuttab and Naim Ateek​











						The Persecution of Christians in the Palestinian Authority
					

The ongoing international neglect of the plight of the Christians under PA rule could lead to the disappearance of Christianity in the place where it emerged.




					besacenter.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections Episode 27: Israel's Sacred Terrorism with Remi Brulin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PI Forum: Imagining a Palestinian Future​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PI Forum: Imagining a Palestinian Future​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Implications of the ICC's Jurisdiction over the West Bank and Gaza​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Land Day 45 Years On | A Day to Resist and Remember​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Under Humanitarian Law the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is subject to prosecution if they: blah, blah, blah.


Where is the list of Israel's violations?

Or is this just another one sided propaganda piece?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> 3. The loud mouth woman in the red jack also conveniently failed to point out that under International Humanitarian Law,


She is 10 times smarter than the doofus on her left. And the woman on his left read him off good.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sheikh Jarrah & the Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem & Beyond​


----------



## P F Tinmore

MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mohammed El-Kurd's full speech for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mohammed El-Kurd | Giving Rise to a New Generation of Palestinian Journalists | Nov 2021 | PART 1​

Mohammed El-Kurd | Giving Rise to a New Generation of Palestinian Journalists | Nov 2021 | PART 2​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Muna El Kurd on Drivetime with Shafiq Morton - 21 October 2021​

Muna El Kurd part 2 - drivetime​


----------



## P F Tinmore

TEDxRamallah - Julia Bacha - One Story, One Film, Many Changes.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Khaled Barakat on Palestinian political prisoners with Africa4Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

JVP-NYC in conversation with Professor Rabab Abdulhadi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ariella Azoulay on Potential History, Decolonization, and Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Zionism, Labor, Privatization, SFSU/AMED and Public Education With SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Inside the Israeli Palestinian Escalation | Pod Save the World​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dardashe — Season: 2 Episode 9 — Mohammed Al Kurd​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dardashe — Season 2: Episode 3 — Farah Nabulsi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

After 70+ Years, Why Are Palestinian Refugees Still An Issue?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dardashe — Episode 12: Rashid Khalidi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rabet Docs: Colonial Economy — How Palestinian workers are dehumanized in an apartheid system​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Refugee Status
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  There are more than a dozen consideration that pop-up when deliberating refugee status of the Arab Palestinian. There are several that rise to the surface as bones of contention.

◈    The race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group.​​◈    Considered a refugee under the definition of the Convention of Refugee Status.​​◈     They are displaced outside the country of nationality​​◈    Unable or  unwilling to avail of the protection of that country to which displaced.​​◈    The country of his former habitual residence.​​◈    Unable or unwilling to return in peace return without the ongoing threat of violence.​


P F Tinmore said:


> After 70+ Years, Why Are Palestinian Refugees Still An Issue?​


(*COMMENT*)

Because if the definition of a "refugee" does not fit the Arab Palestinian vision or agenda, then they simply argue on the basis of an entirely different definition.

Well over 90% of the Arab Palestinians counted as (or self identifying) refugees are actually well beyond that point.  And as the title of the discussion implies, you would be over 70 years old to meet the initial criteria.  

Descendants of the originally displaced Arab Palestinians (≈ 700K) are not truly refugees (_in any case, it is impossible for today's number of refugees to exceed the original number displaced_).  They are generally either the "unwilling," - "unable" - or - those that are necessarily excluded because they actually excluded on the grounds of national security, public order, public health, or present a danger to the rights and freedoms of others.  Of course national security and public order are high on the list of concerns because the Arab Palestinians have made these two political statements that eliminate a very large percentage of the displaced persons as eligible for the return:

*◈* The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.​​*◈* 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.​​*◈* The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.​​*◈* The Arabs of Palestine 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.​
These are, if for no other reason, why the refugee status is still an issue. 






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Unable or unwilling to return in peace return without the ongoing threat of violence.


The violence is because they can't go home.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Refugee Status
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  There are more than a dozen consideration that pop-up when deliberating refugee status of the Arab Palestinian. There are several that rise to the surface as bones of contention.
> 
> ◈    The race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group.​​◈    Considered a refugee under the definition of the Convention of Refugee Status.​​◈     They are displaced outside the country of nationality​​◈    Unable or  unwilling to avail of the protection of that country to which displaced.​​◈    The country of his former habitual residence.​​◈    Unable or unwilling to return in peace return without the ongoing threat of violence.​
> 
> (*COMMENT*)
> 
> Because if the definition of a "refugee" does not fit the Arab Palestinian vision or agenda, then they simply argue on the basis of an entirely different definition.
> 
> Well over 90% of the Arab Palestinians counted as (or self identifying) refugees are actually well beyond that point.  And as the title of the discussion implies, you would be over 70 years old to meet the initial criteria.
> 
> Descendants of the originally displaced Arab Palestinians (≈ 700K) are not truly refugees (_in any case, it is impossible for today's number of refugees to exceed the original number displaced_).  They are generally either the "unwilling," - "unable" - or - those that are necessarily excluded because they actually excluded on the grounds of national security, public order, public health, or present a danger to the rights and freedoms of others.  Of course national security and public order are high on the list of concerns because the Arab Palestinians have made these two political statements that eliminate a very large percentage of the displaced persons as eligible for the return:
> 
> *◈* The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.​​*◈* 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.​​*◈* The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.​​*◈* The Arabs of Palestine 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.​
> These are, if for no other reason, why the refugee status is still an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Nice collection of Israeli talking points.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Danger of Neutrality | Anna Baltzer | TEDxOcala​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Refugee Status
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> The violence is because they can't go home.


*(COMMENT)*
.
This is the old "Chicken and the egg debate.  

✦    "The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine."​​✦    UNSCOP completed its work on 31 August 1947, with its members agreeing on the question of terminating the Mandate, the principle of independence and the role of the United Nations. There was no consensus, however, on a settlement of the Question of Palestine. The committee considered two proposals on the Question of Palestine:  the majority and minority proposals. The majority of the members recommended that Palestine be partitioned into an Arab State and a Jewish State, with a special international status for the city of Jerusalem under the administrative authority of the United Nations.​*SOURCE:*  The Question of Palestine and the United Nations (AKA The Blue Book) UN New York, 2008 Pg5 Pg7​
While there had been spastic violence of a Civil War nature prior to the adoption of Resolution A/RES/181(II), that was the general complextion of the political environment.

"The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny."​ *SOURCE:*  The Question of Palestine and the United Nations (AKA The Blue Book) UN New York, 2008 Pg9​
The Arab Palestinians had been uncooperative and unresponsive since 1922.  There was no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians would act any differently in 1947/48/49.  The outside observer can judge as to the effectiveness of the Arab Palestinian political path.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny."


That is correct. Why should the Palestinians agree to give half of their country to colonial settlers? There is no legal requirement for them to do so.

The Jews were not immigrants they were settlers.

Immigrants come to *join* the existing community.

Settlers come to *replace* the existing community.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Muslim-Americans discuss attitudes toward Israel​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: It was really every a question of Hostile Arab Palestinian having title to sovereign control over any territory.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE:*  Whether it was or was not a decision for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to weigh in upon, is not the issue.  Who said that it was their political subdivision to be concerned with.  That question is not the issue.

Like has been said before, an entirely encyclopedia could be written to cover these subjects.  But make no mistake.  Whether the discussion are about the three times before 1923, that the Arab Palestinians decline to join in the establishment of self-governing institution (nation building) or today as the incite violence and torment hostilities, the realization is that the Arab Palestinians had no intention a century ago, and no intention today, of developing a productive economy for their people.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is correct. Why should the Palestinians agree to give half of their country to colonial settlers? There is no legal requirement for them to do so.


*(COMMENT)*

Jewish immigration (1922 to 1948) was not an example of colonial settlers.  They were NOT beholding and responsible to a colonial power.  Nor is the current Jewish settlements in Area "C" an example of colonial settler activity.  It was in compliance with the agreed upon Protocols Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".


P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews were not immigrants they were settlers.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether you call them settlers or not, you implication is totally misleading.  The Allied Powers had made the decisions on immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home.


P F Tinmore said:


> Immigrants come to *join* the existing community.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether there was an intent, or not, to assimilate into the Arab Palestinian Community was altered by the ever increasing civil disruption and lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

By the mid-1920s, the Allied Powers had already allocated approximately three-quarters of the territory under the Mandate to Arabs of the Hejaz _(making a Hashemite Emirate)_, a people who had sided with the Allied Powers.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians conveniently forget that point.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians like to suggest that they are an Arab victim and that "apartheid" somehow cheated them out of something.



P F Tinmore said:


> Settlers come to *replace* the existing community.


*(COMMENT)*

The question of replacement is simply an intentional political deception.   In order to establish a safe rear area, free of marauding Hostile Arab Palestinians, it became necessary to displace 700K Arab Palestinians.  That was largely because the Jewish people feared the Hostile Arab Palestinians would cause an internal security problem.  They did anyway and still do today.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was in compliance with the agreed upon Protocols Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".


That cannot and does not release Israel from its restrictions and obligations as an occupying power.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Whether there was an intent, or not, to assimilate into the Arab Palestinian Community was altered by the ever increasing civil disruption and lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Palestinians.


The Palestinians were under no obligation to take part in the settler colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Whether you call them settlers or not, you implication is totally misleading. The Allied Powers had made the decisions on immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home.


Foreign interference.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Whether the discussion are about the three times before 1923, that the Arab Palestinians decline to join in the establishment of self-governing institution (nation building) or today as the incite violence and torment hostilities, blah, blah, blah.


They did not need to. They were already the sovereigns in the territory and had a functioning society.


----------



## P F Tinmore

VIDC: The Renewal of the Palestinian Movement. A Transnational Unity from Below?​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:   Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> That cannot and does not release Israel from its restrictions and obligations as an occupying power.


*(COMMENT)*

Just what "restrictions and obligation" are you talking about?

You know, of course, that "restrictions and obligation" change over time.  So you have to be able to make a complete allegation by when, where and and what...

You also know that when the Arab Palestinian operates under the publicly announce conflict threat as a matter of policy, that the "restrictions and obligation" are reduced to meet the threat.  For 70 years, the 

*Arab Palestinians *who commit offense which is *solely intended to harm the Occupying Power*, which  constitute an attempt on the life or limb of the Occupying Forces or administration, that presents a collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the Occupying Forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to detention pending prosecution. 

This is the Geneva Convention, Article 68.  This is a hand-in glove match to to Article 42 and 43 of The Hague Regulation.


P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were under no obligation to take part in the settler colonial project.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct, but, they may not hinder actions taken pursuant to actions necessary under The Hague Regulation, the Geneva Convention, or the ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C."



P F Tinmore said:


> They did not need to. They were already the sovereigns in the territory and had a functioning society.


*(COMMENT)*

At no time in the 800 years prior to the surrender of the Ottoman Empire have the Arab Palestinians exercised political sovereignty over any territory west of the Jordan River.  At no time were the Arab Palestinians holding the supreme authority over the territorial integrity west of the Jordan River.

This periodic argument that you present suggesting the Arab Palestinians held some territorial sovereignty is simply incorrect.  (*With the possible exception of Area "A."*)





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> At no time were the Arab Palestinians holding the supreme authority over the territorial integrity west of the Jordan River.


The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty has been violated. So says the UN and Palestine's Declaration of Independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Arab Palestinians *who commit offense which is *solely intended to harm the Occupying Power*, blah, blah, blah.


The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary including armed struggle.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*:  I am not an attorney, but I have done my share of research on many of the topics discussed here today.  And the one thing I can say, with some measure of confidence, is that the character of International Law is very "uncertain" or indeterminate.  One of the most amazing of these indetermanent characteristics is the strength of enforcement of regulations overseen by international organizations.  The greatest of these in the last 150 years is that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).  The ICRC is not a governmental agency.  The ICRC is "independent" and holds the characteristics of a neutral organization.  And over the years the ICRC has become the preeminent International Humanitarian Organization which advocates on the applications of protections and provides assistance for victims of armed conflicts and similar theaters of violence.  Perhaps no other organization of its kind has been the influence of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the interpretive foundation for prosecution of misdeeds in the combat arena then → the ICRC's implied interpretations of The Hague Regulation and the Geneva Conventions (_with modern protocols_).  In contemporary history of warfare (_conventional or otherwise_) no body of law has been effected more by an "independent" nature of an organization than the ICRC in such matters.  Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) defers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 in the matter of war crimes.






P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary including armed struggle.


*(COMMENT)*

That is entirely wrong.  And do not bother to bringup  those General Assembly Resolutions.  No matter what you have been told, the non-binding pronouncements by the United Nations DO NOT trump The Hague Regulation or the Geneva Conventions that come down on the side of the Occupation Power.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinian attempt to intentionally harm the Occupying Power, then the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  And I am specifically addressing:
​_◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX)._ 29 November 1974.  _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/33/24_ 29 November 1978. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/34/44_. 23 November 1979. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/35/35_. 14 November 1980. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/36/9_. 28 October 1981. _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​
*BTW*:  All five of these non-binding resolutions were published before 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the entirety of its claims west of the Jordan River.  The point being is that the territory was occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory and NOT Palestine (however you might define it).  These claims might have been applicable to Jordan and not Israel.





P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty has been violated. So says the UN and Palestine's Declaration of Independence.


*(COMMENT)*

If the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty that was violated, that would be a very different argument on different grounds.  It is my pleasure to introduce you to the Legal Finding by the UN Legal Affairs Office:




​Please read this very short Paragraph 1 carefully.  While the Arab Palestinians insistently claim that they have some sovereignty over something, it is very clearly stated that:

_◈. _Palestine was not identified as:​​•. A state​•. A country​​◈.  Palestine did not have an authority that was identifiable as a government.​​◈.  Until 2012, the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" (PLO).​
PART 3  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
*GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW*
Article 22(2)
_*Nullum crimen sine lege*_

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. *In case of ambiguity, the de!nition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated*, prosecuted or convicted.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


_AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL LAW_ • Cambridge University Press • The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom © Jan Klabbers 2002

_The Philosophy of International Law _• Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © the several contributors, Edited by SAMANTHA BESSON AND JOHN TASIOULAS  2010

Principles of International Humanitarian Law • © Jonathan Crowe and Kylie Weston-Scheuber
Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013

Everyone’s Accountable: how non-state armed groups interact with international humanitarian law • By Lieutenant Colonel Tim Rutherford, Australian Army, _Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1999._


.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  I am not an attorney, but I have done my share of research on many of the topics discussed here today.  And the one thing I can say, with some measure of confidence, is that the character of International Law is very "uncertain" or indeterminate.  One of the most amazing of these indetermanent characteristics is the strength of enforcement of regulations overseen by international organizations.  The greatest of these in the last 150 years is that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).  The ICRC is not a governmental agency.  The ICRC is "independent" and holds the characteristics of a neutral organization.  And over the years the ICRC has become the preeminent International Humanitarian Organization which advocates on the applications of protections and provides assistance for victims of armed conflicts and similar theaters of violence.  Perhaps no other organization of its kind has been the influence of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the interpretive foundation for prosecution of misdeeds in the combat arena then → the ICRC's implied interpretations of The Hague Regulation and the Geneva Conventions (_with modern protocols_).  In contemporary history of warfare (_conventional or otherwise_) no body of law has been effected more by an "independent" nature of an organization than the ICRC in such matters.  Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) defers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 in the matter of war crimes.
> 
> View attachment 628944
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is entirely wrong.  And do not bother to bringup  those General Assembly Resolutions.  No matter what you have been told, the non-binding pronouncements by the United Nations DO NOT trump The Hague Regulation or the Geneva Conventions that come down on the side of the Occupation Power.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinian attempt to intentionally harm the Occupying Power, then the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong.  And I am specifically addressing:
> ​_◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX)._ 29 November 1974.  _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/33/24_ 29 November 1978. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/34/44_. 23 November 1979. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/35/35_. 14 November 1980. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​​_◈. A/RES/36/9_. 28 October 1981. _Reaffirms _the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​
> *BTW*:  All five of these non-binding resolutions were published before 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the entirety of its claims west of the Jordan River.  The point being is that the territory was occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory and NOT Palestine (however you might define it).  These claims might have been applicable to Jordan and not Israel.
> View attachment 628945
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty that was violated, that would be a very different argument on different grounds.  It is my pleasure to introduce you to the Legal Finding by the UN Legal Affairs Office:
> 
> View attachment 628958
> ​Please read this very short Paragraph 1 carefully.  While the Arab Palestinians insistently claim that they have some sovereignty over something, it is very clearly stated that:
> 
> _◈. _Palestine was not identified as:​​•. A state​•. A country​​◈.  Palestine did not have an authority that was identifiable as a government.​​◈.  Until 2012, the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" (PLO).​
> PART 3  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
> *GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW*
> Article 22(2)
> _*Nullum crimen sine lege*_
> 
> The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. *In case of ambiguity, the de!nition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated*, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R
> 
> 
> _AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL LAW_ • Cambridge University Press • The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom © Jan Klabbers 2002
> 
> _The Philosophy of International Law _• Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © the several contributors, Edited by SAMANTHA BESSON AND JOHN TASIOULAS  2010
> 
> Principles of International Humanitarian Law • © Jonathan Crowe and Kylie Weston-Scheuber
> Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013
> 
> Everyone’s Accountable: how non-state armed groups interact with international humanitarian law • By Lieutenant Colonel Tim Rutherford, Australian Army, _Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1999._
> 
> 
> .View attachment 628964


The League of Nations and others determined that Palestine is a state. The Mandate for Palestine document called Palestine a country many times. Article 80 of the UN Charter states:


> ...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.


The UN has no authority to change that.
--------------





> A/RES/*3236* (XXIX)
> 22 November 1974
> _Recognizing_ that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> _Expressing its grave concern_ that the *Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, *in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> _Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the *Palestinian people in Palestine,* including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;


Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of
the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty,
independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts
of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region
constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,

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

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

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

UN Resolution 37/43


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your posting 3013 is so screwed-up with misleading and false information as to be an intentional deception.

The UN did not change anything.  Not a single thing.  The use to the term state did not apply to anything the Arab Palestinian held sovereign over.  Article 80 applies to independently govern institutions when it says "state."  It did not apply to any entity unable to put a functioning government together.  The Arab Palestinians rejected every invitation to become party to building of self-governing institutions.

Another point is that no-one denied the Arab Palestinian the Right of Self-Determination.  The Right of Self-Determination does not mean they get a state of their own.  They still have to assemble it, with all the working pieces.

 The Arab Palestinians did not have anything resembling a government that carried out the functions of government.

The Arab Palestinians are NOT under colonial domination.  They are a corrupt country which openly advocates murder and mayhem.  Israel is what it is.  If you turn the Arab Palestinians loose on the world, there is no reasonable expectation of any long term peace.  When the Israelis unilaterally gave the Gaza Strip control, they immediately turned into a government that has the singular purpose of terrorism.

None of the 5 General Assembly Resolutions are binding or constitute law.
You are grasping at straws.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Your posting 3013 is so screwed-up with misleading and false information as to be an intentional deception.
> 
> The UN did not change anything.  Not a single thing.  The use to the term state did not apply to anything the Arab Palestinian held sovereign over.  Article 80 applies to independently govern institutions when it says "state."  It did not apply to any entity unable to put a functioning government together.  The Arab Palestinians rejected every invitation to become party to building of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Another point is that no-one denied the Arab Palestinian the Right of Self-Determination.  The Right of Self-Determination does not mean they get a state of their own.  They still have to assemble it, with all the working pieces.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians did not have anything resembling a government that carried out the functions of government.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are NOT under colonial domination.  They are a corrupt country which openly advocates murder and mayhem.  Israel is what it is.  If you turn the Arab Palestinians loose on the world, there is no reasonable expectation of any long term peace.  When the Israelis unilaterally gave the Gaza Strip control, they immediately turned into a government that has the singular purpose of terrorism.
> 
> None of the 5 General Assembly Resolutions are binding or constitute law.
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


So many Israeli talking points. Did they give you a book or something?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Exposing Colonial Peace-Building from Palestine to Ireland​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Opening Panel: Palestinians Demand Right of Return - Return Week 2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 48 - Erasure with Nerdeen Kiswani​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 43 - Amnesty International "Antisemitic terrorists"​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> So many Israeli talking points. Did they give you a book or something?



That's not an argument, you just can't refute anything.

Can mindless trolling compensate for that?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That is correct. Why should the Palestinians agree to give half of their country to colonial settlers? There is no legal requirement for them to do so.
> 
> The Jews were not immigrants they were settlers.
> 
> Immigrants come to *join* the existing community.
> 
> Settlers come to *replace* the existing community.



That's your typical xenophobic trope,
you're trying to criminalize an ethnicity.

Jewish immigrants joined the local Jewish community,
as much as the Arab immigrants joined the Arab community.
Both existing communities grew at least 10 fold, as under no other rule.

*(QUESTION)*

If Palestinians shouldn't agree to give half of "their" country,
is that why they're fine with 70% of the land given to Jordan?

Is it against colonialism, to want Palestine be another Arab colony?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> If Palestinians shouldn't agree to give half of "their" country,
> is that why they're fine with 70% of the land given to Jordan?


Jordan didn't kick them out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Jewish immigrants joined the local Jewish community,


They joined the settler community.

That's nice.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 51 - Embracing Jewish Anti-Zionism with Rabbi Rosen​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 49 - A Seat at the Table with Ahmed Eldin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Reshaping Palestinian Narratives: Who is Listening And Can it Make a Difference?​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: WHY?.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,





*(COMMENT)*

Because the territory was not under Arab Palestine Sovereignty.   The Arab Palestinians cannot give away something that was not sovereign unto them to begin with.

There were no colonial settlers.  There were Jewish Immigrants.

The Arab Palestinians rejected three time the offer to become part of the effort to create a set of new developing and Self-Governing Institutions before the Treaty of Lausanne.

The Arab Palestinians rejected the offer to become part of the effort to create new developing and Self-Governing Institutions before the termination of the mandate.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Because the territory was not under Arab Palestine Sovereignty.


We can't steal from the Palestinians because they don't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 45 - Overthrow Abbas with Diana Buttu​


----------



## P F Tinmore

#StandDownLive: Sandra Tamari​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Author Visit with Linda Sarsour​


----------



## P F Tinmore

“Surging Violence” Narrative Ignores Ongoing Structural Violence Against Palestinians​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What's behind the rise in Palestinian attacks on Israelis? | Inside Story​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Following in the Footsteps of DAESH
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For decades, many have believed that the Arab Palestinians only use "freedom fighting" and "independence" as an excuse for the execution of the innocent (*Palestinians exhibiting deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioral controls*).  The Arab Palestinians periodically show their true colors when they pursue asymmetric tactics such as we've seen in recent weeks.



P F Tinmore said:


> What's behind the rise in Palestinian attacks on Israelis? | Inside Story​


*(COMMENT)*

DAESH is a desperate Sunni style political ideology with strong religious undercurrents.  DAESH (*a Salafi-jihadists terrorist type*) is in a hopeless struggle to obtain its objective, which is to secure territory needed to establish a variant Islamist State somewhere in or near the Levant Region.  There is no question that DAESH has suffered to very significant defeats in the last couple years.  But DAESH is not out of the game yet.

While this sounds strange, DAESH is targeting the West Bank Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), which is somewhere between 80% and 90% Sunni.  There are enough mentally deranged, in the current context, political/religious aims, are just the weakness that DAESH to incite violence that they may use to their advantage.  The within the general population, as well as specific West Bank HoAPs (*Palestine Liberation Organization, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine*), and HAMAS (*Islamic Resistance Movement*) exhibit the same kinds of weaknesses that DAESH has exploited in the past.  The Monoamine Oxidase A-L Variant (*AKA Warrior Gene*) and the monetary incentives for family survivors make a very lucrative garden from which DEASH may incite violence and recruit others to replenish losses.

The inability to protect themselves against DAESH exploitation rest almost entirely with the Israelis.  If DAESH gets a political foothold in the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians will get a new taste as to what it means to be "oppressed."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Following in the Footsteps of DAESH
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> For decades, many have believed that the Arab Palestinians only use "freedom fighting" and "independence" as an excuse for the execution of the innocent (*Palestinians exhibiting deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioral controls*).  The Arab Palestinians periodically show their true colors when they pursue asymmetric tactics such as we've seen in recent weeks.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> DAESH is a desperate Sunni style political ideology with strong religious undercurrents.  DAESH (*a Salafi-jihadists terrorist type*) is in a hopeless struggle to obtain its objective, which is to secure territory needed to establish a variant Islamist State somewhere in or near the Levant Region.  There is no question that DAESH has suffered to very significant defeats in the last couple years.  But DAESH is not out of the game yet.
> 
> While this sounds strange, DAESH is targeting the West Bank Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), which is somewhere between 80% and 90% Sunni.  There are enough mentally deranged, in the current context, political/religious aims, are just the weakness that DAESH to incite violence that they may use to their advantage.  The within the general population, as well as specific West Bank HoAPs (*Palestine Liberation Organization, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine*), and HAMAS (*Islamic Resistance Movement*) exhibit the same kinds of weaknesses that DAESH has exploited in the past.  The Monoamine Oxidase A-L Variant (*AKA Warrior Gene*) and the monetary incentives for family survivors make a very lucrative garden from which DEASH may incite violence and recruit others to replenish losses.
> 
> The inability to protect themselves against DAESH exploitation rest almost entirely with the Israelis.  If DAESH gets a political foothold in the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians will get a new taste as to what it means to be "oppressed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Where do you get this shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Era of Palestinian Unity?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The State of Two States: Session 2 - The Current State of Affairs in Israeli-Palestinian Relations​


----------



## P F Tinmore

IPF Atid Big Conversations 2022: The Trajectory of American Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

WATCH: Dáil motion condemning Israeli annexation and occupation of Palestinian lands​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 21 - Reclaiming Arab Judaism with Hadar Cohen​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mizrahi Identity in the US​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Growing Threat of Settler Violence​


----------



## P F Tinmore

End-of-Year Reflections, New Year Predictions: Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2021 and 2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Marc Lamont Hill Discusses Conflict Between Israel & Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

🇮🇱 🇵🇸 Marc Lamont Hill and the limits on Israel-Palestine debate | The Listening Post (Full|)​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

31st Annual Davis, Markert, and Nickerson Lecture on Academic and Intellectual Freedom​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Radihika Sainath: The Israel lobby's attacks on freedom of speech and successful legal challenges.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sut Jhally: Are U.S. news organizations getting better or worse in their Middle East reporting?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mnar Adley is joing by documentary film maker and investigative journalist Dan Cohen to talk about how Israel's Temple Movement Provokes Settler Violence in Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa during Ramadan, again, and his documentary about this settler violence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Tuesday, February 15 Capitol Calling Party: Resisting Attacks on Palestinian Human Rights Activists​


----------



## P F Tinmore

DIMA KHALIDI SPEECH AT "CRIMINALIZING DISSENT" PALESTINIAN RIGHTS PANEL AT UMASS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

THE OCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND - Full Movie - Documentary Feature​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Keynote Dr. Hanan Ashrawi: Changed policies since Trump & new hope for Palestine's future.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Lowkey's response to the claim that BDS singles out Israel
*


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Generation That Will Return - Global Palestinian Youth Roundtable​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A conversation with Mustafa Barghouti & Ilan Pappé = #BarghoutiPappe2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why is Ukrainian and Palestinian resistance treated differently? | The Stream​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 37 - Whose Identity Will They Steal Next? With Noor Elkhaldi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 44 - Honey I Shot the Kids​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel's kangaroo court system.*

Why All the Fuss About Palestinian Prisoners/Martyrs?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Not a Conflict: Against Anti-Semitism and for Palestinian with Malkah Bird​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Not a “Cycle of Violence” but a Cycle of Impunity​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More of Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.*

Conflating Human Rights Advocacy with Terrorism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 52 - Looking Into It​


----------



## P F Tinmore

#Palestine: Videos of violence, images of death on social media | The Listening Post​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel-Gaza: How can conflict de-escalate? - BBC Newsnight​
*All of the aggression is from Israel.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem: Al-Aqsa In The Snipers Scope w/ Lowkey & Dr. Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Your posting 3013 is so screwed-up with misleading and false information as to be an intentional deception.
> 
> The UN did not change anything.  Not a single thing.  The use to the term state did not apply to anything the Arab Palestinian held sovereign over.  Article 80 applies to independently govern institutions when it says "state."  It did not apply to any entity unable to put a functioning government together.  The Arab Palestinians rejected every invitation to become party to building of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Another point is that no-one denied the Arab Palestinian the Right of Self-Determination.  The Right of Self-Determination does not mean they get a state of their own.  They still have to assemble it, with all the working pieces.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians did not have anything resembling a government that carried out the functions of government.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are NOT under colonial domination.  They are a corrupt country which openly advocates murder and mayhem.  Israel is what it is.  If you turn the Arab Palestinians loose on the world, there is no reasonable expectation of any long term peace.  When the Israelis unilaterally gave the Gaza Strip control, they immediately turned into a government that has the singular purpose of terrorism.
> 
> None of the 5 General Assembly Resolutions are binding or constitute law.
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Palestine was a state during the Mandate period. After the Mandate left in 1948, and the UN dropped the ball on its trusteeship, the Palestinians declared independence. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states.

In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Israel *de facto* annexed the territory it had conquered and occupied in 1948. The Green Line divides the 1948 occupied territory from the 1967 occupied territory. The Palestinians regularly call Israel "48."


----------



## P F Tinmore

SiC Podcast Episode 4: Palestine: Solidarity and Struggle​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*PREFACE*:  Once more, this is a mis representation of the facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was a state during the Mandate period.


*(COMMENT)*

No, this is not at all true.




My Best Reproduced Copy of Memorandum "A" of the UK Document 
*A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*​*Excerpt Expanded:*​Palestine is today a legal entity but it *is not a sovereign state*. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.​​2. After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.* The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​​3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majestyâ€™s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​​4. *After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. *It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the _de facto_ or the _de jure_ Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.​​5. His Majestyâ€™s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.​
Between the time this Memorandum was written (FEB 1948) and first three Armistice Agreements were made: 23 FEB 1949 (EGYPT), 23 MAR 1949 LEBANON, and 3 APR 1949 JORDAN) the conflict between the established Israeli Government and the three adjacent Arab League states, named here, plus Israel, had assumed political control (by Military Armistice Agreements) of all the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> After the Mandate left in 1948, and the UN dropped the ball on its trusteeship, the Palestinians declared independence. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states.


*(COMMENT)*

This is simply and patently untrue.  The Egyptian Military Governorship attempted to establish further control over the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine by establishing a puppet regime known as the All Palestine Government (APG)(22 SEP 48).   However, by agreement made via each of the Armistice Agreement,  the Armistice Agreements would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved or by mutual consent, revise this Agreement.  The APG (all the Egyptian Military Governorship) announcement of 22 SEP 1948 couldn't supersede the Armistice Agreements without reigniting the conflict.  It became nothing more than political noise.


P F Tinmore said:


> In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Israel *de facto* annexed the territory it had conquered and occupied in 1948. The Green Line divides the 1948 occupied territory from the 1967 occupied territory. The Palestinians regularly call Israel "48."


*(COMMENT)*

The UN did not divide anything.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  Israel did not annex anything in 1948 or in 1967.  In 1948, the Jewish Community, via the Jewish Agency made by Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of a Jewish State to be known as the State of Israel (Eretz-Israel).  I generally get this wrong. (I cannot remember if it is the Jewish State made Israel, or if Israel made the Jewish State.)  Somewhere in the chaos of that first celebration, the Jewish National Home became a reality.  That is three to four months before the Egyptians put together the skeleton APG with not institutions of self-governance.  And in fact, in the intervening decade after is establishment (1959), the Egyptian Government disbanded the APG.

AND*!*  Whatever the Palestinians call it, Israel is recognized as the nation with the highest ranking in the Human Development Index, anywhere in the Middle East North African Region.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Israel did not annex anything in 1948 or in 1967. In 1948, the Jewish Community, via the Jewish Agency made by Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of a Jewish State to be known as the State of Israel (Eretz-Israel).


     
Then where did Israel get territory?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I try not to state by obvious.  And I try not to state that which has been documented main times.



P F Tinmore said:


> Then where did Israel get territory?


*(COMMENT)*
.
At first, The Jewish National Council had every intention of accepting the apportionment recommended by A/RES/181 (II).  But the War of Independence, initiated by the Arab League, produced the differing result generated by the combat outcomes.  These were taken into account when the Armistice Agreements altered the zones of control.

Each of the Armistice Agreements established the Cease Fire Line with specific Arab League forces.  But in the agreements, the Armistice Lines would remain in force until a more permanent agreement was established.  The most current records I have are listed below.

There was not-dancing around the issue of territorial boundaries.  They remain in accordance with the Principles of International Law and Friendly Relations A/RES/2625 (XXV).  Now I know that there are many anti-Jewish and pro-Arab Palestinians that just disregard the Principles out of hand.  Hell, the actions of the Arab Palestinians in the last 90 days have demonstrated just how much they work towards a continuation of the conflict; but there it is.

Again, the boundaries are outlined (fairly accurately) below.  They do not accurately reflect the Special Provisions of Area "C" (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), in the agreement the ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs in Oslo II.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R

Notes
◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •
◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
◈ Golan Heights Law •
◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon *•*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, I try not to state by obvious.  And I try not to state that which has been documented main times.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> At first, The Jewish National Council had every intention of accepting the apportionment recommended by A/RES/181 (II).  But the War of Independence, initiated by the Arab League, produced the differing result generated by the combat outcomes.  These were taken into account when the Armistice Agreements altered the zones of control.
> 
> Each of the Armistice Agreements established the Cease Fire Line with specific Arab League forces.  But in the agreements, the Armistice Lines would remain in force until a more permanent agreement was established.  The most current records I have are listed below.
> 
> There was not-dancing around the issue of territorial boundaries.  They remain in accordance with the Principles of International Law and Friendly Relations A/RES/2625 (XXV).  Now I know that there are many anti-Jewish and pro-Arab Palestinians that just disregard the Principles out of hand.  Hell, the actions of the Arab Palestinians in the last 90 days have demonstrated just how much they work towards a continuation of the conflict; but there it is.
> 
> Again, the boundaries are outlined (fairly accurately) below.  They do not accurately reflect the Special Provisions of Area "C" (_Para 3_, _A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974_), in the agreement the ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs in Oslo II.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R
> 
> Notes
> ◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •
> ◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
> ◈ Golan Heights Law •
> ◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
> ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
> ◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon *•*





RoccoR said:


> At first, The Jewish National Council had every intention of accepting the apportionment recommended by A/RES/181 (II).


Resolution 181 didn't happen. Israel got nothing.


RoccoR said:


> But the War of Independence, initiated by the Arab League, produced the differing result generated by the combat outcomes.


The Arab League states lost no land. Israel got nothing.

???


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mehdi Hasan | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union​


----------



## P F Tinmore

In Defense of Solidarity: Palestine on Campus A virtual film screening & panel discussion​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defend our Movements, Strengthen Our Communities:​*#DroptheADL*​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Wrestling with Zionism Part 1​

Wrestling with Zionism Part 2​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Violence & Western Hypocrisy: Where Are the Palestinian Flag Emojis? w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How to fight university censorship with Rabab Abdulhadi & Tomomi Kinukawa | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The history of the Palestinian Authority and other collaborators with Joseph Massad | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Zionism, Imperialism & Why the Arab Uprisings Failed - With Joseph Massad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Must Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews? Plus, Pinkwashing​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defeating censorship on a UK campus with Shahd Abusalama & Giovanni Fassina | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Race, Racism, and Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Thinking Palestine–Ferguson & Standing Rock: Radical Kinship & the ‘Intersectionality of Struggles’​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Why Must Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews? Plus, Pinkwashing​


YAWN..... Here we go again.  Israel does not have the Right to Exist.  He actually explains perfectly why the " two State Solution" is DOA


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The so called war on terror.   *


----------



## P F Tinmore

The War On Terror Never Ended for Muslim Americans​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> *The so called war on terror.  *



" White Supremacy?" Isn't that the phrase he used when he accused Kyle Rittenhouse PUBLICLY of being GUILTY BEFORE A JURY WAS EVEN PICKED??  A individual who shot three CAUCASIANS.  That's our biggest problem??

Cities With Most Murders 2022









						Fentanyl pouring through our open borders is up 800% in Texas alone
					

In 2019, President Donald J. Trump forced the Chinese Communists to declare fentanyl a controlled substance. The CCP agreed to treat offenders without mercy. China is the biggest producer of fentanyl in the United States. To make it worse, they taught cartels south of our border how to make it...




					www.independentsentinel.com
				












						220,000 illegal immigrants have evaded Border Patrol since October
					

Approximately 220,000 illegal immigrants have evaded Border Patrol since October, a Department of Homeland Security official told Fox News on Wednesday.




					nypost.com
				




  This doesn't include the Millions that have already come in and the prediction it will increase approx 18,000 day of the ones we know about
   " Forgot" one more; INFLATION.  THANK YOU once again for exhibiting your narrow mind and stupidity 

ONE MORE!!!!!  THOSE RIOTS IN 2020 CAUSED APPROX 2 BILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGE NOT TO MENTION DEATHS, LOSS OF BUSINESS ( Some Permanent) and others with lifelong physical disabilities


----------



## P F Tinmore

'Peace in name only': Opposing the Abraham Accords & Normalization Agreements​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Legalized Discrimination: How Israel’s “Citizenship & Entry” law harms Palestinian families by design​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Center Annual Conference 2019 - Panel 1​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel - Turning blood into money.*

2021 Edward Said Memorial Lecture with Susan Abulhawa​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Talks on Palestine featuring Huwaida Arraf​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More of Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.*

2021 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People​


----------



## P F Tinmore

2021 Palestine Center Annual Conference (Panel 2)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Michael Arria, Omar Baddar, and Lamis Deek*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *More of Israel's bullshit terrorist propaganda campaign.*



Indeed, nothing to see here.

Though I like how you go out of your way to try to frame
Islam as mere _"Israel's bullshit terroirist propaganda campaign"._


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Why Must Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews? Plus, Pinkwashing​



Arab supremacists can't blame Germany
for their own crimes and defeat after siding with both sides.

And if European Jews are their problem, then they shouldn't have
initiated Zionism by expelling the local Jewish community from all holy cities.

For the truth of the matter, 
Arab supremacists are responsible
for most death and suffering on both sides.


----------



## P F Tinmore

LIVE: Israel Lobby's Attempt to Cancel Revolutionary Antiwar, Pro-Palestine Rapper Lowkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


Thank you for this post! Accusing the Israelis of “ occupying another people’s land” That says it all.  They have NO interest in the “ Two State Solution “ nor do they have ANY interest in letting the Israelis be a “ equal partner” in this New State or have ANY rights at all. Are you REALLY that STUPID??👍 🇮🇱

After the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the eastern portion of Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan. Under Jordanian control Jews were completely expelled from the Old City including the Jewish Quarter, and Jews were barred from entering the Old City for 19 years, effectively banning Jewish prayer at the site of the Western Wall.










						Palestinian ‘right of return’ is really about ending Israel's existence
					

On Jan. 28, President Trump revealed his administration's long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. As several commentators noted, the proposal explicitly states that there shall be no “right of return” — a key phrase with a very particular meaning that few analysts have carefully parsed out.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com
				





Somehow he doesn't have the ability to understand this will never happen again.  I enjoy it !


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> After the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the eastern portion of Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan. Under Jordanian control Jews were completely expelled from the Old City including the Jewish Quarter, and Jews were barred from entering the Old City for 19 years, effectively banning Jewish prayer at the site of the Western Wall.


Complain to Jordan. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Complain to Jordan. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.


Another stupid comment. The Palestinians already made a formal statement that Jews would not be allowed at the Western Wall. 
 I would like to see the link where they stated   They would not forbid the Jews to enter the way Jordan did


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Another stupid comment. The Palestinians already made a formal statement that Jews would not be allowed at the Western Wall.
> I would like to see the link where they stated   They would not forbid the Jews to enter the way Jordan did


Of course Tinmore can’t rebuke anything I say which is why E Jerusalem will always be in the hands of the Israelis


----------



## P F Tinmore

No more excuses for apartheid Israel boycotts with Olivia Katbi and Omar Zahzah | EI Podcast​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> No more excuses for apartheid Israel boycotts with Olivia Katbi and Omar Zahzah | EI Podcast​


*(COMMENT)*

I'll make no bones about it:  Asa Winstanley, Omar Zahzah, Nora Barrow-Friendman, and Olivia Kati, all speak and discuss the anti-American and anti-Israeli, politics on a level so far about me, that it is almost a foreign language to me.  I maybe grasped about 10% or 20% of the 50 minutes of the very professional presentation.

But there were a few things that I did catch onto:


They seem to draw a very distinct line in the sand:  as if the Israeli Border between sovereign Israel on one side and the apartheid separated on the other. They do not see the protection of Israeli sovereignty on one side from the people on the territories as a very real potential threat.
Just like the is a political rivalry between the US and the Russian Federation, so they make a clear association between the Israeli apartheid state --- and the other --- with the Russian Federation and the oppressed people of the Arab Palestinian territory.  
They talk very plainly:  They speak of the American Enemy (pro-Israeli associates) as the enemy of the Russian Federation (anti-Israeli pro-Human Rights associates) as the good guys, tat only want the Arab Palestinians to get the lion's share of their demands.
They speak of American Industry, commerce, business, and investments as targets for BDS political pressure to weaken Israel and move the anti-Israeli, anti-apartheid, pro-Arab Palestinian to a more favorable position to achieve their goals.
Not once did I hear any justification for the hostile action or how they can possibly assign apartheid as a crime being committed by Israel.  They are just wildly shooting in the dark without a clear platform.

It makes me think that the Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) and its various demands are exactly what these Arab Palestinians want.   I do not think the Arab Palestinians (both the hostile and the complacent) have thought this through.  

They might get the status elevated by Islam.  They have certainly demonstrated they are not a people pursuing peace.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine is the litmus test for international law | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's dirty arms trade secrets with Shir Hever | EI Podcast​


----------



## RoccoR

et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine is the litmus test for international law | EI Podcast​


The Intifada wishes this were true.  But in the end, the Blood Thirsty actions Arab Palestinians can never justify means.  And each time the Hostile Arab Palestinians fire a rocket, incite violence, and bleed the donor funding to line selective pockets, they violate international law in addition to --- customary and international humanitarian law.

It takes quite some gull for a consortium of callous, unemotional, and morally depraved  -- lawlessness of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  It takes some serious twisting and turning of ground truth in order to justify thee outrageous and heinous act to make it justify the means that they could have achieved.

Results of Very Poor Arab Palestinian  Leadership.







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is U.S. opinion shifting on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Hisham Sharabi Memorial Lecture with Prof. Lawrence Davidson "As Go the Palestinians, So Goes the World"*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> et al,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'll make no bones about it:  Asa Winstanley, Omar Zahzah, Nora Barrow-Friendman, and Olivia Kati, all speak and discuss the anti-American and anti-Israeli, politics on a level so far about me, that it is almost a foreign language to me.  I maybe grasped about 10% or 20% of the 50 minutes of the very professional presentation.
> 
> But there were a few things that I did catch onto:
> 
> 
> They seem to draw a very distinct line in the sand:  as if the Israeli Border between sovereign Israel on one side and the apartheid separated on the other. They do not see the protection of Israeli sovereignty on one side from the people on the territories as a very real potential threat.
> Just like the is a political rivalry between the US and the Russian Federation, so they make a clear association between the Israeli apartheid state --- and the other --- with the Russian Federation and the oppressed people of the Arab Palestinian territory.
> They talk very plainly:  They speak of the American Enemy (pro-Israeli associates) as the enemy of the Russian Federation (anti-Israeli pro-Human Rights associates) as the good guys, tat only want the Arab Palestinians to get the lion's share of their demands.
> They speak of American Industry, commerce, business, and investments as targets for BDS political pressure to weaken Israel and move the anti-Israeli, anti-apartheid, pro-Arab Palestinian to a more favorable position to achieve their goals.
> Not once did I hear any justification for the hostile action or how they can possibly assign apartheid as a crime being committed by Israel.  They are just wildly shooting in the dark without a clear platform.
> 
> It makes me think that the Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) and its various demands are exactly what these Arab Palestinians want.   I do not think the Arab Palestinians (both the hostile and the complacent) have thought this through.
> 
> They might get the status elevated by Islam.  They have certainly demonstrated they are not a people pursuing peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> all speak and discuss the anti-American and anti-Israeli, politics


Not really. Only the criminals in the governments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nature Under Settler Colonialism | Panel Discussion | Palestine Writes 2020​


----------



## P F Tinmore

One Democratic State - Awad Abdelfattah and Jeff Halper​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peace & Justice - Linda Sarsour​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settler Colonialism, Race, and the Law: Why Structural Racism Persists by Natsu Taylor Saito​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Holding Israel Accountable: Remembering Rachel Corrie​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is Israel a rogue state? | Inside Story​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Holding Israel Accountable: Remembering Rachel Corrie​


You know what they say; A pancake 🥞 has two sides  🥱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lubna Shomali on The tragedy of the Palestinian refugees​


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> You know what they say; A pancake 🥞 has two sides  🥱


Making jokes about killing people shows everybody who you are.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Making jokes about killing people shows everybody who you are.


Lying about the facts and not acknowledging the second intifada tells everybody who you are


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Lying about the facts and not acknowledging the second intifada tells everybody who you are


Do you mean the one that started when Israel fired live rounds into unarmed protesters?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean the one that started when Israel fired live rounds into unarmed protesters?


Nice try but that’s not how the second intifada started. I will “ cry”😪 for her when you cry for the American’s who were killed by Palestinians or that JEWISH BOY killed on the Brooklyn Bridge 
My prior post says a lot about me but Pals celebrate with CANDY whenever a Israeli is killed? We already know what You are and you never disappoint us 👍🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 50 - Resistance for me, not thee​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Free, Free, Palestine!: Biden, Israel and the Fight for Palestinian Liberation​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Free, Free, Palestine!​


*(COMMENT)*

So, what would the territories look like if the Israelis were to unilaterally withdraw (all Gaza in 2005, breakdown and pullout settlements) and completely close its borders to the passage (crossing) to the Arab Palestinians?  

What would if look like if it cut all ties with the territories in the same way Jordan did in 1988?

Let me see how you envision a "Liberated Palestine."






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The new look...
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, what would the territories look like if the Israelis were to unilaterally withdraw (all Gaza in 2005, breakdown and pullout settlements) and completely close its borders to the passage (crossing) to the Arab Palestinians?
> 
> What would if look like if it cut all ties with the territories in the same way Jordan did in 1988?
> 
> Let me see how you envision a "Liberated Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


WOW, I could write a book. I think some people already have. So let’s break it down.

I think that settlements can stay. Nothing should be demolished and nobody should be kicked out of their homes. Everyone on that side of the green line would be Palestinian citizens. They would follow the same rules and taxation as the other Palestinians. No land, homes, businesses, farms, etc. could be foreign owned.

Let’s discuss. There are many more issues that need to be addressed, but we can start here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Socialism and the Struggle for Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course, this withdrawal from the settlements in the territories is something that is a purely Israeli decision.  But, in all likelihood, the Israelis would establish a Management Agency (MA) that would control the gradual process.  The Israelis would determine what, if any services or utilities would be terminated and when.



P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, I could write a book. I think some people already have. So let’s break it down.
> 
> I think that settlements can stay. Nothing should be demolished and nobody should be kicked out of their homes. Everyone on that side of the green line would be Palestinian citizens. They would follow the same rules and taxation as the other Palestinians. No land, homes, businesses, farms, etc. could be foreign owned.
> 
> Let’s discuss. There are many more issues that need to be addressed, but we can start here.


*(COMMENT)*

◈   There is no longer a "Green Line."  There has not been a Green Line, which was established by the Armistice, and has not existed for more than a quarter century.​​◈   I suppose the MA would have to determine what infrastructure is removable and of that what would be found useful in the Israeli relocation program.  What infrastructure can be recovered generators, cell towers, fiber optic able​​◈   I can see decisions being made on what aspects of "homes, businesses, farms, etc." which would be prohibited from foreign ownership can be extracted.​​◈   What is necessary to preposition in terms of that necessary thousand (or so) businesses and manufacturing facilities need to be relocated and what infrastructure needs set in place.​​◈   What new air transport facilities, train yards, warehousing, trucking terminal, and refueling stations need to be established.​
The Israelis will need to consider all these aspects and (many) more, once the decision to withdraw is made.  There will need to be accommodations and utilities for approximately 700,000 Settlers that will need to be relocated as well as about 250,000 additional workers.

This is the tip of the iceberg.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ There is no longer a "Green Line." There has not been a Green Line, which was established by the Armistice, and has not existed for more than a quarter century.


So then, how would you define "the territories?"


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The new look...
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Of course, this withdrawal from the settlements in the territories is something that is a purely Israeli decision.  But, in all likelihood, the Israelis would establish a Management Agency (MA) that would control the gradual process.  The Israelis would determine what, if any services or utilities would be terminated and when.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈   There is no longer a "Green Line."  There has not been a Green Line, which was established by the Armistice, and has not existed for more than a quarter century.​​◈   I suppose the MA would have to determine what infrastructure is removable and of that what would be found useful in the Israeli relocation program.  What infrastructure can be recovered generators, cell towers, fiber optic able​​◈   I can see decisions being made on what aspects of "homes, businesses, farms, etc." which would be prohibited from foreign ownership can be extracted.​​◈   What is necessary to preposition in terms of that necessary thousand (or so) businesses and manufacturing facilities need to be relocated and what infrastructure needs set in place.​​◈   What new air transport facilities, train yards, warehousing, trucking terminal, and refueling stations need to be established.​
> The Israelis will need to consider all these aspects and (many) more, once the decision to withdraw is made.  There will need to be accommodations and utilities for approximately 700,000 Settlers that will need to be relocated as well as about 250,000 additional workers.
> 
> This is the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


I think you are looking at this backward. Israel's basic excuse for everything is security. Palestinian attacks are a response to Israeli aggression. Most of those aggressions have nothing to do with security.

There is a long list of things that Israel could change that would bring so called terrorism down to almost zero.

Then Israel/Palestine could evolve into a better place.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE:  I am not an attorney, but I think that the Oslo Accords were clear.  At some point in time, the Legitimate Government for the Palestinians would eventually exercise "sovereignty" over Areas: "A" "B" "C"







P F Tinmore said:


> So then, how would you define "the territories?"


*(COMMENT)*

Area "A" and the "Gaza Strip".are, by any reasonable man's standard, is under effectively (no matter how incompetent that leadership is) sovereign control by the two separate elements of governments of Palestine (Ramallah and Gaza).  I think that the Montevideo Convention of 1933 would support that.

Areas "B" and "C" are different stories.

The Doctrine covering the "*Abuse of Rights*" concept can, at some point, kick in.  Eventually, if they have not done so already, claim the Right to Kill Jews.  That the Arab Palestinians issues vigilanty payments to those that kill Jews.





The Arab Palestinians negate the International Humanitarian Law (Article 68 GCIV) by claiming the right of armed conflict and insist they can attack, at will, using any means to harm the Occupying Power.

As I have said before, the Arab Palestinian have demonstrated by any question that they have depraved indifference for human life.  (Article 38(1c) International Court of Justice)

Just My Opinion as a Common Man,




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: The new look...
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> PREFACE:  I am not an attorney, but I think that the Oslo Accords were clear.  At some point in time, the Legitimate Government for the Palestinians would eventually exercise "sovereignty" over Areas: "A" "B" "C"
> 
> View attachment 644422
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Area "A" and the "Gaza Strip".are, by any reasonable man's standard, is under effectively (no matter how incompetent that leadership is) sovereign control by the two separate elements of governments of Palestine (Ramallah and Gaza).  I think that the Montevideo Convention of 1933 would support that.
> 
> Areas "B" and "C" are different stories.
> 
> The Doctrine covering the "*Abuse of Rights*" concept can, at some point, kick in.  Eventually, if they have not done so already, claim the Right to Kill Jews.  That the Arab Palestinians issues vigilanty payments to those that kill Jews.
> 
> View attachment 644457
> 
> The Arab Palestinians negate the International Humanitarian Law (Article 68 GCIV) by claiming the right of armed conflict and insist they can attack, at will, using any means to harm the Occupying Power.
> 
> As I have said before, the Arab Palestinian have demonstrated by any question that they have depraved indifference for human life.  (Article 38(1c) International Court of Justice)
> 
> Just My Opinion as a Common Man,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


No matter what Oslo says, the entire West Bank is occupied territory and is under the Geneva Convention.

Resistance is justified when people are occupied.

If a woman is being raped I am not going to give her a check list of what she can or cannot do. Some of her options may be illegal under different circumstances.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, I could write a book. I think some people already have. So let’s break it down.
> 
> I think that settlements can stay. Nothing should be demolished and nobody should be kicked out of their homes. Everyone on that side of the green line would be Palestinian citizens. They would follow the same rules and taxation as the other Palestinians. No land, homes, businesses, farms, etc. could be foreign owned.
> 
> Let’s discuss. There are many more issues that need to be addressed, but we can start here.



How does imposing another Arab colony,
with "citizenship" based on Sharia,
even help the Arabs involved?

Not to mention the argument
for any distinct "Palestinian"
nationalism and foreign
ownership...



> _Article 4_​_1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine._
> _2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation. _
> _3. Arabic shall be the official language._


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> No matter what Oslo says, the entire West Bank is occupied territory and is under the Geneva Convention.
> 
> Resistance is justified when people are occupied.
> 
> If a woman is being raped I am not going to give her a check list of what she can or cannot do. Some of her options may be illegal under different circumstances.



Arab supremacists may claim the Geneva convention 
assumes for them a privilege to murder people 
in territories, they fail to take over.

But no one can answer what
are they resisting in a coffeeshop?






						*Oh G-D Another Terrorist Muslim Kill 6 Jews Today*
					

Sorry bout that,  1. Anyone surprised? 2. Still the Jews allow them to live next door. 3. Its wrong. 4. READ: 6 dead, including alleged gunman, in apparent Israel terror attack  5. Sample:   "The gunman was identified by the Jerusalem Post as Dia Hamarsha from Ya’bad, He was allegedly convicted...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> No land, homes, businesses, farms, etc. could be foreign owned.
> 
> Let’s discuss.



Foreign as in another country
being your last name?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Mehdi Hasan | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union​



*





"...Peaceful religion"*

Is that what Arab imperialists call the
main cause of illiteracy in the Middle East,
and the largest institution of slavery to this day?









						A Note on Arabic Literacy and Translation - ALTA Language Services
					

Greece annually translates five times more books from English than the entire Arab world, and currently, 65 million Arab adults are illiterate. These



					www.altalang.com
				











						Arabs and Muslims Own Black Slaves in Five African Countries
					

Arabs and Muslims Own Black Slaves in Five African Countries Today, there could be more people enslaved than at any time in human history. According to the International Labour Organization, as of …




					www.iabolish.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Weaponization of Israel/Palestine in 2022 Politics & Elections​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Grassroots Protests & Violent Repression by the Palestinian Authority​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Reflections on Palestine from Sheikh Jarrah to Gaza​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

How students are fighting ADL's smear campaigns | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Update: Ali Abunimah on Israeli Ethnic Cleansing in Silwan​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel – Palestine Discussion 2018 | Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, Ali Abunimah, Janneke Stegeman,​


----------



## P F Tinmore

More terrorist name calling bullshit.​​Double Standard: Canada’s terrorist list, the IDF, Palestinians and the case of Khaled Barakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Historical Denialism: Silencing Justice – “Comfort Women”, Palestine & Gendered and Sexual Violence*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Caroline Glick: Where were Hamas rockets on Jerusalem Day? | Mideast News Hour​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Politics, Arab Normalization, & Escalating Violence: A Deep Dive with Dalia Hatuqa​


----------



## P F Tinmore

MR Conversations: A LAND WITH A PEOPLE​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Greenwashing Colonialism and Apartheid​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Americans in Jerusalem Are Helping Kick Out Palestinians​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Jerusalem neighbourhood symbolizing the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Norman Finkelstein destroyed Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lara Friedman, President of Foundation for Middle East Peace​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Israel is a settler colonial society" - Diana Buttu​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Anger mounts in West Bank at increasingly under-fire Palestinian Authority • FRANCE 24 English​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shutting Down Israel's War Machine: Palestine Action w/ Lowkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Latest Target in the Israel Lobby's War on Academia: Shahd Abusalama​ Pro-Israeli government campaigners were left bitterly disappointed when, earlier this month, their campaign to remove Palestinian activist and academic Shahd Abusalama from her position at Sheffield Hallam university failed. The Jewish Chronicle, Britain's self-proclaimed "oldest Jewish newspaper," was furious with the decision to allow an "activist who praised terrorists" to continue in her position, labeling the Yorkshire institution a "hostile environment" for British Jews to study at. Today, Abusalama joins Watchdog host Lowkey to talk about her upbringing in a Gazan refugee camp, her struggles with the powerful Israel lobby, and her future. Support MintPress work by becoming a Patreon: MintPress News is creating Independent watchdog journalism! | Patreon Follow Lowkey: https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline Follow MintPress News: https://twitter.com/MintPressNews



			https://www.rokfin.com/post/77237/The-Latest-Target-in-the-Israel-Lobbys-War-on-Academia-Shahd-Abusalama-


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Lobby Pouring Millions to Unseat Progressive Democrats​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Women and the struggle for Palestinian National Liberation.​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Women and the struggle for Palestinian National Liberation.​



Arab supremacists exploit women to formalize misogyny.
Did they get a permit to speak to infidels?









						Women need male guardian to travel, says Hamas court in Gaza Strip
					

Rollback in women’s rights could spark backlash as Palestinians plan elections later in the year




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Yes, the Israelis do have E Jerusalem captured after the 67 War the Arabs initiated.  If they had won that War would they March down the Streets yelling “ Death to the Israelis?”  No; because either every Israeli would be killed











						What If Israel had Lost the Six-Day War? - aish.com
					

Two things can be nearly certain: There would be no Palestinian state. And there would be no Jewish state.




					aish.com
				





If Israel Lost the War - Wikipedia



			https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1967-The-Six-Day-War-and-the-Historic-Reunification-of-Jerusalem.aspx
		


I think his post is HILARIOUS!  He accuses the Israelis of " White Supremacy" yet if it were up to the Arabs every single Israeli would be dead and Israel would no longer be on the map


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Latest Target in the Israel Lobby’s War on Academia: Shahd Abusalama​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Latest Target in the Israel Lobby’s War on Academia: Shahd Abusalama​



What better way to shake off these accusations 
than to appear on IranTV with another rabid racist,
who used lectures to accuse Jewish students of being "pawns"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> What better way to shake off these accusations
> than to appear on IranTV with another rabid racist,
> who used lectures to accuse Jewish students of being "pawns"?





rylah said:


> What better way to shake off these accusations than to appear on IranTV,


 MintPressNews is a US organization.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> MintPressNews is a US organization.



The infamous CIAR propaganda front faking
dates of Ramadan to pass out sweets celebrating 9/11?

Of course, she also likes to appear on presstv, the Iranian state channel.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> The infamous CIAR propaganda front faking
> dates of Ramadan to pass out sweets celebrating 9/11?
> 
> Of course, she also likes to appear on PressTV, the Iranian state channel.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Already lost on words...

Islamists can't hold a debate?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Already lost on words...
> 
> Islamists can't hold a debate?


Is name calling your only rebuttal?


----------



## P F Tinmore

The cost of speaking out for Palestinian rights | UpFront​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Naomi Wolf - Israel Lobby in the US​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Is name calling your only rebuttal?



Rebuttal of what, you aren't presenting any argument.
I'm merely stating a fact, your professor likes to
appear on IranTV with a guy who uses lectures
to accuse Jewish students of being 'pawns'.

Is this what you want for education?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Prof. Avi Shlaim - Hamas is Not a Greater Obstacle to Peace Than Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Rebuttal of what, you aren't presenting any argument.
> I'm merely stating a fact, your professor likes to
> appear on IranTV with a guy who uses lectures
> to accuse Jewish students of being 'pawns'.
> 
> Is this what you want for education?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Is this what you want for education?









						British professor fired for calling Jewish students ‘pawns’ of Israel
					

University of Bristol says David Miller's comments were not 'unlawful speech' but his conduct 'did not meet the standards of behavior we expect from our staff'; he plans to appeal




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel Lobby in Academia: Film screening and panel discussion​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phyllis Bennis on 100 Years After Balfour​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Israel Lobby in Academia: Film screening and panel discussion​



If after closing streets screaming genocidal threats,
assaulting and using lectures to single out Jewish students,
still don't feel _"heard enough"_, maybe you aren't doing it right?


----------



## rylah

*Florida Imam: "Liberate Palestine - 
even at the price of tens of millions of Muslims"*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

Maurice Hirsch: There is no real difference between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas | Top Story​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

DEADLY EXCHANGE: Tell Boston to Drop the ADL - 31 March 2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Launch of Israel/Palestine: In Search of the Rule of Law Conference Souvenir Brochure​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Palestinian activist blasts Israeli violence at Al Aqsa and Sheikh Jarrah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Reflections on Palestine from Sheikh Jarrah to Gaza​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rashida Tlaib Asks U.S. to Recognize Palestinian Suffering | The Mehdi Hasan Show​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Civil Rights vs. Israel Advocacy: The Battle Inside the ADL​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Decolonize Now: A Conversation about Radical Imagination and Justice in Israel/Palestine​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



The intuition to expect prophecy from Israelis is true.
However, it's the fundamental misunderstanding
about the purpose, which fails the Arabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Radhika Sainath on Marc Lamont Hill​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Know your rights: FBI edition​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Tuesday, February 15 Capitol Calling Party: Resisting Attacks on Palestinian Human Rights Activists​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat in Conversation with Katherine Franke and Diala Shamas​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, the Squad & How the Right To Resist Imperial Violence Is Universal, w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Must Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews? Plus, Pinkwashing​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 48 - Erasure with Nerdeen Kiswani​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 47 - Civilized Armed Resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 58 - Reclaiming the Narrative with Jamal Elshayyal​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection (Documentary)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Socialism and the Struggle for Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

ديوان الشرق | Al Sharq Diwan - Sumaya Awad: Palestine: A Socialist Perspective​


----------



## MJB12741

All, of what you present shall remain worthless unless & until you & your Palestinians realize that Israel is there to stay.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine: Democracy Under Occupation? with Ramzy Baroud, Nadia Naser-Najjab and Samah Sabawi​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the nature of the Arab Palestinian Claim.
⁜→  et al,
*(PREFACE)

Proverbs 21:25​*
The desire of the lazy man kills him,
 for his hands refuse to labor.​


			
				EXCERPT FROM THE FABLE• The Little Red Hen said:
			
		

> *The hen asks who will help her eat the bread. *This time the animals accept eagerly, but the hen refuses them stating that no one helped her with her work and decides to eat the bread herself. She then runs away with it.
> *SOURCE*:   An American fable first collected by Mary Mapes Dodge in _St. Nicholas Magazine_ in 1874. The story is meant to teach children the importance of* hard work and personal initiative*.


*(COMMENT)*

*".Verse 26 shows that the righteous—who do labor—share with others.* The righteous are not to be consumed with greed, but should be content with what they have (Hebrews 13:5). Those who desire what is not rightfully theirs should labor instead so they can give to others who are genuinely in need (Ephesians 4:28)."






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution (Part 3 of 8)​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Honesty
⁜→ et al,

*(COMMENT)*

By 1923, a hundred years ago, it was obvious that the Arab - Jewish political positions were a bit like oil and water.  

I do not think that western-style politics is going to fix anything here.  No one seriously thinks that the Arab Palestinians are going to be peaceful neighbors.  

These Arab Palestinians believe in some sort of divine intervention.  It will supernaturally roll back the clock is going to clock.  That will not happen in my lifetime.

Anyone who thinks like our friend "Tinmore" (as an example) is doing nothing more than setting back the renovation that needs to happen to the Arab Palestinian economy, law enforcement, and political clean-up in fraud that is rampant.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

NYU Webinar - We Will Not Be Silenced​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Free, Free, Palestine!: Biden, Israel and the Fight for Palestinian Liberation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 56 - Guerrilla Diplomacy with Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Al-Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition Rally: 72 Years of Nakba, Marching Toward Return​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RIGHT of RETURN,Susan Akram Pt 3​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rethinking Statehood in Palestine: Self-Determination and Decolonization Beyond Partition | SOAS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

We Will Not Be Erased: Ongoing Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shifting the Narrative on Palestine in 2022 and Beyond​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Bumperstickers for the last century of bungling by the incapable Arab Palestinians*!*
⁜→ et al,
*(PREFACE)*

◈  Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution​✦  Annexation was not undertaken by the Israelis that had NOT already by the Ottoman Empire and one of the immediately adjacent Arab States.​✦  Settlements were not undertaken by the Israelis, that the Palestinians had not previously approved.​​✦  The Two-State solution was never really given a chance to succeed.​◈  Palestine: Democracy Under Occupation?​✦  What manner of democracy did the Arab Palestinians have in the previous millennium?  When, in the previous millennium, did the Arab Palestinians have control over any of the territories under discussion?  ​◈  Socialism and the Struggle for Palestine​✦  Yes...  When was that ever a real issue?  When did the Arab Palestinians march against the Ottoman Empire demanding socialism?  Who was the Arab Palestinian that campaigned against the sovereign power in the name of socialism?​◈  How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection​✦  So, what objection did the world's Allied Powers have to this effort the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.   In 1920, when the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers made the determination that there was a historical tie between the Jewish People and the territory of Palestine, who (other than the Arab Palestinians who wanted everything for nothing) disagreed with that finding?  Did the Arab Palestinians even fight on behalf of the Allied Powers against the Axis Powers?  The Allied Powers agreed upon a Jewish National Home, but not an Arab National Home.​◈  We Will Not Be Erased: Ongoing Nakba​✦  No one is asking to "erase" the culture of the former inhabitants overseen by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).  But the amount of trouble the Arab Palestinians represented in the First and Second World Wars, the Allied Powers could be said to have been quite accommodating.​◈  Resisting Attacks on Palestinian Human Rights Activists​✦  Rarely, when an anti-government struggle for unearned benefits (in both cases, Arab Palestinians not fighting on the side of the Allied Powers) have rioters, confrontationists, activists, and the asymmetric opponents, not suffered casualties.​◈  Right To Resist Imperial Violence Is Universal​✦  There is not been any Imperial violence in the Levant in the last century.  In fact, there has been no law enforcement or security confrontation been any Imperial Forces in more than a half-century.​◈  Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews?​✦  While the WWII German Government was shown to be guilty of Customary and International Humanitarian Laws, the Arab Palestinians paid very little, if any at all, either for the association with the Axis Powers of WWI or WWII.    ​​"The agreement was ratified and came into effect on March 21, 1953, after a delay caused ​by the Arab states’ efforts to prevent ratification. Under the agreement, West Germany ​undertook to pay a total of* $845 million*: $100 million earmarked for allocation by the ​Claims Conference and the remainder to Israel."​
*(COMMENT)*

I'm telling you, it is almost impossible to participate in any of these Arab-Palestinian Discussions without tripping over some whiny and good-for-nothing Arab Palestinians telling us how bad it is to receive counter-rocket and mortar fired from Israel.  How bad it is for them, not to receive a compatible amount of US Donor Dollars.  I can just hear the tears falling on the floor now --- condemning the US for not giving a country (if you can call it that) that has supported terrorist activities for so long, even more money to do less to further American interests.  I'm telling you, it just breaks my heart. 

Does anyone have some tissues?





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

An Nabi Saleh & the non-violent struggle against the occupation.wmv]​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ Annexation was not undertaken by the Israelis that had NOT already by the Ottoman Empire and one of the immediately adjacent Arab States.


There were no adjacent states until after the Ottoman Empire fell.


----------



## P F Tinmore

I'm telling you, it is almost impossible to participate in any of these Arab-Palestinian Discussions without tripping over Israeli propaganda.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Bari Weiss | Full Episode 3.12.21 | Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | PBS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Bumperstickers for the last century of bungling by the incapable Arab Palestinians*!*
> ⁜→ et al,
> *(PREFACE)*
> 
> ◈  Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution​✦  Annexation was not undertaken by the Israelis that had NOT already by the Ottoman Empire and one of the immediately adjacent Arab States.​✦  Settlements were not undertaken by the Israelis, that the Palestinians had not previously approved.​​✦  The Two-State solution was never really given a chance to succeed.​◈  Palestine: Democracy Under Occupation?​✦  What manner of democracy did the Arab Palestinians have in the previous millennium?  When, in the previous millennium, did the Arab Palestinians have control over any of the territories under discussion?  ​◈  Socialism and the Struggle for Palestine​✦  Yes...  When was that ever a real issue?  When did the Arab Palestinians march against the Ottoman Empire demanding socialism?  Who was the Arab Palestinian that campaigned against the sovereign power in the name of socialism?​◈  How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection​✦  So, what objection did the world's Allied Powers have to this effort the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.   In 1920, when the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers made the determination that there was a historical tie between the Jewish People and the territory of Palestine, who (other than the Arab Palestinians who wanted everything for nothing) disagreed with that finding?  Did the Arab Palestinians even fight on behalf of the Allied Powers against the Axis Powers?  The Allied Powers agreed upon a Jewish National Home, but not an Arab National Home.​◈  We Will Not Be Erased: Ongoing Nakba​✦  No one is asking to "erase" the culture of the former inhabitants overseen by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).  But the amount of trouble the Arab Palestinians represented in the First and Second World Wars, the Allied Powers could be said to have been quite accommodating.​◈  Resisting Attacks on Palestinian Human Rights Activists​✦  Rarely, when an anti-government struggle for unearned benefits (in both cases, Arab Palestinians not fighting on the side of the Allied Powers) have rioters, confrontationists, activists, and the asymmetric opponents, not suffered casualties.​◈  Right To Resist Imperial Violence Is Universal​✦  There is not been any Imperial violence in the Levant in the last century.  In fact, there has been no law enforcement or security confrontation been any Imperial Forces in more than a half-century.​◈  Palestinians Pay for Germany’s Crimes Against European Jews?​✦  While the WWII German Government was shown to be guilty of Customary and International Humanitarian Laws, the Arab Palestinians paid very little, if any at all, either for the association with the Axis Powers of WWI or WWII.    ​​"The agreement was ratified and came into effect on March 21, 1953, after a delay caused ​by the Arab states’ efforts to prevent ratification. Under the agreement, West Germany ​undertook to pay a total of* $845 million*: $100 million earmarked for allocation by the ​Claims Conference and the remainder to Israel."​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm telling you, it is almost impossible to participate in any of these Arab-Palestinian Discussions without tripping over some whiny and good-for-nothing Arab Palestinians telling us how bad it is to receive counter-rocket and mortar fired from Israel.  How bad it is for them, not to receive a compatible amount of US Donor Dollars.  I can just hear the tears falling on the floor now --- condemning the US for not giving a country (if you can call it that) that has supported terrorist activities for so long, even more money to do less to further American interests.  I'm telling you, it just breaks my heart.
> 
> Does anyone have some tissues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





RoccoR said:


> ◈ Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution


BTW, you have never showed any evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: ACQUISITION
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, you have never showed any evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land.


*(COMMENT)*
.
◈  Sovereign Acquisition is NOT a Real Estate Transaction in most cases.  While the Louisiana Purchase and the Purchase of Alaska were very similar to Real Estate deals, most of the remainder of the US was acquired under Self-Determination through the policy of Manifest Destiny.​​◈. And again, most of the world, prior to the era of the Westphalen Agreement were undocumented acquisitions.  Last March, Crimea was in the news.  It was acquitted during the Acquisition of Catherine the Great.  And there are several reasons why it should be so.  But whether or not the exchange met the Tinmore Transition Test is entirely another matter.  And it is rather obvious that the rest of the world is NOT going to mobilize to reset the sovereignty.  When the remainder of the world takes no serious action to restore sovereignty, it is called "Tacit Approval."  It is not worthy of further action.  For over a century, the direction in which sovereign control has been established in the Middle East has NOT changed and has NOT been challenged.  ​​*(PONDER)*

At the end of The Great War (WWI), five Empires in the World collapsed (the Empires of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman).  The collapsed Empires were each handled differently.  And the five Empires were dispatched simultaneously to the Mandates for Palestine being established over the Territory of Palestine.  What should we do?  Do the Imperialists have a legitimate claim against those territories?  Of course not.

You want political evidence...  Who has control?




_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ We Will Not Be Erased: Ongoing Nakba​✦ No one is asking to "erase" the culture of the former inhabitants


Are you kidding me? Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians. They have always tried to remove the Palestinians off their land and out of history. The Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war were called Arabs not Palestinians. Israel stole Palestinian books during the war. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO archives went missing. It is illegal to teach Palestinian history or wave a Palestinian flag. Most Palestinian organizations are illegal. Israel bombed a cultural center and libraries in Gaza. Israel ransacked a cultural center in the West Bank.

Any Palestinian event worldwide gets buried in antisemite and terrorist cards.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: ACQUISITION
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> ◈  Sovereign Acquisition is NOT a Real Estate Transaction in most cases.  While the Louisiana Purchase and the Purchase of Alaska were very similar to Real Estate deals, most of the remainder of the US was acquired under Self-Determination through the policy of Manifest Destiny.​​◈. And again, most of the world, prior to the era of the Westphalen Agreement were undocumented acquisitions.  Last March, Crimea was in the news.  It was acquitted during the Acquisition of Catherine the Great.  And there are several reasons why it should be so.  But whether or not the exchange met the Tinmore Transition Test is entirely another matter.  And it is rather obvious that the rest of the world is NOT going to mobilize to reset the sovereignty.  When the remainder of the world takes no serious action to restore sovereignty, it is called "Tacit Approval."  It is not worthy of further action.  For over a century, the direction in which sovereign control has been established in the Middle East has NOT changed and has NOT been challenged.  ​​*(PONDER)*
> 
> At the end of The Great War (WWI), five Empires in the World collapsed (the Empires of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman).  The collapsed Empires were each handled differently.  And the five Empires were dispatched simultaneously to the Mandates for Palestine being established over the Territory of Palestine.  What should we do?  Do the Imperialists have a legitimate claim against those territories?  Of course not.
> 
> You want political evidence...  Who has control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_





RoccoR said:


> most of the remainder of the US was acquired under Self-Determination through the policy of Manifest Destiny.


Isn't Manifest Destiny a euphemism for land theft?


RoccoR said:


> ◈. And again, most of the world, prior to the era of the Westphalen Agreement were undocumented acquisitions.


Indeed, since the UN Charter and before, the acquisition of territory by force, i.e. conquest, is illegal. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel legally acquire the territory it claims?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Isn't Manifest Destiny a euphemism for land theft?
> 
> Indeed, since the UN Charter and before, the acquisition of territory by force, i.e. conquest, is illegal. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.
> 
> So, how did Israel legally acquire the territory it claims?


Indeed. Conquest describes the history of Islamism.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Are you kidding me? Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians. They have always tried to remove the Palestinians off their land and out of history. The Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war were called Arabs not Palestinians. Israel stole Palestinian books during the war. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO archives went missing. It is illegal to teach Palestinian history or wave a Palestinian flag. Most Palestinian organizations are illegal. Israel bombed a cultural center and libraries in Gaza. Israel ransacked a cultural center in the West Bank.
> 
> Any Palestinian event worldwide gets buried in antisemite and terrorist cards.


Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Links?


About the books.

The Great Book Robbery​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel robs the banks.*

A History of Money in Palestine: The Case of the Frozen Bank Accounts of 1948​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> About the books.
> 
> The Great Book Robbery​


Your usual irrelevance.

Nice duck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Are you kidding me? Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians. They have always tried to remove the Palestinians off their land and out of history. The Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war were called Arabs not Palestinians. Israel stole Palestinian books during the war. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO archives went missing. It is illegal to teach Palestinian history or wave a Palestinian flag. Most Palestinian organizations are illegal. Israel bombed a cultural center and libraries in Gaza. Israel ransacked a cultural center in the West Bank.
> 
> Any Palestinian event worldwide gets buried in antisemite and terrorist cards.


No links. 

No surprise.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Cultural Heritage
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
.
Do you really think that the Arab Palestinians have a claim?

I really do not care what rabbit you pull from the hat.






P F Tinmore said:


> Are you kidding me? Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians. They have always tried to remove the Palestinians off their land and out of history. The Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war were called Arabs not Palestinians. Israel stole Palestinian books during the war. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO archives went missing. It is illegal to teach Palestinian history or wave a Palestinian flag. Most Palestinian organizations are illegal. Israel bombed a cultural center and libraries in Gaza. Israel ransacked a cultural center in the West Bank.
> 
> Any Palestinian event worldwide gets buried in antisemite and terrorist cards.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Realistically, The UN already told you that the Office of Legal Affairs: prior to the adoption of GA/A/67/19, Palestine was treated as an entity for UN purposes.  Palestine was NOT identified as a state or country. And no authority could be identified as being a government.

Given that one of the "state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; *(c) government*; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."  

Believe what you will.  If the International system comes down on the side of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, overturn the 100-year decision by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers.  That will put at risk other decisions that will have an impact on other decisions made.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Believe what you will. If the International system comes down on the side of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, overturn the 100-year decision by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers. That will put at risk other decisions that will have an impact on other decisions made.


Cool.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Given that one of the "state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; *(c) government*; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."


Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.

Palestine's permanent population dates back for centuries.

Israel has never had a defined territory. It is always depicted by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

Palestine's territory is defined by international borders.

The Israeli government was created against the wishes of the majority of the people and imposed on the people at the point of a gun.

Palestine has always had governance. Like Hanan Ashrawi said. "We govern ourselves."

Palestine signed a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence was recognized by five countries. Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Anti-Semitism and: Anti-Zionsim - Never The Twain Shall Meet.​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.
> 
> Palestine's permanent population dates back for centuries.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory. It is always depicted by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> Palestine's territory is defined by international borders.
> 
> The Israeli government was created against the wishes of the majority of the people and imposed on the people at the point of a gun.
> 
> Palestine has always had governance. Like Hanan Ashrawi said. "We govern ourselves."
> 
> Palestine signed a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence was recognized by five countries. Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.


Don't forget that the ''country of pal'istan'' was invented in 1924 by the Treaty of Lausanne. 

''Oslo is dead'', remember?

What about those ''new states''? Anything?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.
> 
> Palestine's permanent population dates back for centuries.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory. It is always depicted by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> Palestine's territory is defined by international borders.
> 
> The Israeli government was created against the wishes of the majority of the people and imposed on the people at the point of a gun.
> 
> Palestine has always had governance. Like Hanan Ashrawi said. "We govern ourselves."
> 
> Palestine signed a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence was recognized by five countries. Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.








						Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
					






					wwi.lib.byu.edu
				




Gee, whiz. Not a single reference or attribution to some invented ''country of Pal'istan'' in the document you insist invented such a place. 

But then, you knew that. 

It's as though you're completely befuddled..... or something.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Cultural Heritage
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*(OPENING) * It services no useful purpose to argue and quibbling over passages just for the purpose of projecting some meaningless, unfathomable, false or inaccurate information, that which is deliberately intended to deceive the readership.

It offers no defense what so ever in the debate.  It is, without question, attempting to sound as if it is the product of logic and critical thinking; yet is not able to be maintained a defense or maintain a challenge against any attack or objection that might present itself to be sound and valid.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.


*(COMMENT)*

This is clearly  a false "and" ambiguous statement of a material fact made by anti-Israeeli, pro-Palestinians and customary/international humanitarian law. party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract.

Israeli component segments of the population is NOT now, not has it ever been, and shows no sign of becoming any imported colonial settlers.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's permanent population dates back for centuries.


*(COMMENT)*

Going back a millennium in the history of the sovereign powers over the Levant, there is no record of an Arab Palestinian self-governing state, nation, or country.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has never had a defined territory. It is always depicted by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.


*(COMMENT)*

Israeli may have superimposed its sovereign boundaries over top portions some portions of the ceasefire lines established by the various military authorities, the intent of certain passages relating to the use of military ceasefire lines as an intentional "permanent boundary" was not the what the ceasefire lines were intended to be.  Military Officers of the Armed Forces do not generally act on behalf of a governments in the agreement on permanents political boundaries, borders, or subdivisions.

The Armistice Agreements do NOT prohibit the use of any demarcation lines by the parties negotiating a permanent peace.


P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's territory is defined by international borders.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this statement  lies in the face of the International Community legal finding. 



P F Tinmore said:


> The Israeli government was created against the wishes of the majority of the people and imposed on the people at the point of a gun.


*(COMMENT)*

To this very day, most of the permanent boundaries and demarcations for sovereign territories are initially established that way.

(WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS)

How did the Peoples Republic of China takeover a very substantial portion of the South China Sea?

In the Black Sea and Crimea Region - much of the region was seized by Russia.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has always had governance. Like Hanan Ashrawi said. "We govern ourselves."
> 
> Palestine signed a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence was recognized by five countries. Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.


(COMMENT)

This is ambiguous.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said: 
 Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.        


RoccoR said:


> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is clearly a false "and" ambiguous statement of a material fact made by anti-Israeeli, pro-Palestinians and customary/international humanitarian law. party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract.


Importing colonial settlers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Cultural Heritage
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(OPENING) * It services no useful purpose to argue and quibbling over passages just for the purpose of projecting some meaningless, unfathomable, false or inaccurate information, that which is deliberately intended to deceive the readership.
> 
> It offers no defense what so ever in the debate.  It is, without question, attempting to sound as if it is the product of logic and critical thinking; yet is not able to be maintained a defense or maintain a challenge against any attack or objection that might present itself to be sound and valid.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is clearly a false "and" ambiguous statement of a material fact made by anti-Israeeli, pro-Palestinians and customary/international humanitarian law. party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract.
> 
> Israeli component segments of the population is NOT now, not has it ever been, and shows no sign of becoming any imported colonial settlers.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Going back a millennium in the history of the sovereign powers over the Levant, there is no record of an Arab Palestinian self-governing state, nation, or country.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israeli may have superimposed its sovereign boundaries over top portions some portions of the ceasefire lines established by the various military authorities, the intent of certain passages relating to the use of military ceasefire lines as an intentional "permanent boundary" was not the what the ceasefire lines were intended to be.  Military Officers of the Armed Forces do not generally act on behalf of a governments in the agreement on permanents political boundaries, borders, or subdivisions.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements do NOT prohibit the use of any demarcation lines by the parties negotiating a permanent peace.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this statement  lies in the face of the International Community legal finding.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To this very day, most of the permanent boundaries and demarcations for sovereign territories are initially established that way.
> 
> (WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS)
> 
> How did the Peoples Republic of China takeover a very substantial portion of the South China Sea?
> 
> In the Black Sea and Crimea Region - much of the region was seized by Russia.
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> This is ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





RoccoR said:


> *(OPENING) * It services no useful purpose to argue and quibbling over passages just for the purpose of projecting some meaningless, unfathomable, false or inaccurate information, that which is deliberately intended to deceive the readership.


What was inaccurate? Expound.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Misinformation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, intentional deception to spread disinformation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.





P F Tinmore said:


> Importing colonial settlers.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Recent_!_

I am over 70 years old.  This ship dropped anchor in Haifa during well before I was born - and prior to the 29 November 1947 Resolution.. It was considered a refugee ship.

Now you can call the Jewish by any designation you want (after all you are Arab Palestinian).  But the 1920 Supreme Council referred to it as → facilitating immigration.
.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Misinformation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, intentional deception to spread disinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Recent_!_
> 
> I am over 70 years old.  This ship dropped anchor in Haifa during well before I was born - and prior to the 29 November 1947 Resolution.. It was considered a refugee ship.
> 
> Now you can call the Jewish by any designation you want (after all you are Arab Palestinian).  But the 1920 Supreme Council referred to it as → facilitating immigration.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





RoccoR said:


> But the 1920 Supreme Council referred to it as → facilitating immigration.


Misnomer.

Immigrants go to join the existing culture.

Colonial settlers go to replace the existing culture.

Two completely different people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Tlaib gets emotional: Americans should be deeply disturbed​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 61 - Top 5 Dead or Alive​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 59 - Winning the PR battle with Jenan Matari​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 54 - Declare a Firing Zone & Expect Fire​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 53 - Vampires and Blood Libel with Michael Malarkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 12 - When We Were Arabs with Massoud Hayoun​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Colonial settlers go to replace the existing culture.


Such is the history of islamism. 


Nothing yet on those 'new states'? Weren't they invented by the Treaty of Lausanne along with the invention of the 'country of pal'istan'?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 05 - Moving the Goalposts with Nora Barrows-Friedman​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Under Attack: The Surge of Antisemitism During the Conflict in Israel and the Region | FHFH 5.20.21​

Israeli activities are the biggest cause of so called antisemitism.

Did anyone here suggest that Israel change its activities?

*Not one!  *


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli activities are the biggest cause of so called antisemitism.
> 
> Did anyone here suggest that Israel change its activities?
> 
> *Not one! *



Using the rapist logic demonstrates your intention
in supporting attacks on a minority worldwide,
regardless of any specific action by Israelis.

How that differs from using the N-word
to blame Africans for Islamic slavery?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's permanent population was recently imported colonial settlers.
> Palestine's permanent population dates back for centuries.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory. It is always depicted by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. Palestine's territory is defined by international borders.
> 
> The Israeli government was created against the wishes of the majority of the people and imposed on the people at the point of a gun.Palestine has always had governance. Like Hanan Ashrawi said. "We govern ourselves."
> 
> Palestine signed a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence was recognized by five countries. Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.



How depicted something isn't an argument, defining "Palestine borders" as anything
outside Arab hegemony, means that Palestine can't have a defined territory.

The US agreement was with Britain, confirms that Palestinian sovereignty
is defined and titled solely to the Jewish nation under international law.

If Palestine's "permanent" population dates back for centuries
and not colonial settlers, why define them as any non-Jew
passing in the land for no more than 2 years?

The Arab majority wasn't created by peaceful means.
When Ashrawi's 'self governance' is a colony run by Mecca under
exclusive Arab domination over Middle East and Africa - it's not guns?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> How depicted something isn't an argument, defining "Palestine borders" as anything
> outside Arab hegemony, means that Palestine can't have a defined territory.
> 
> The US agreement was with Britain, confirms that Palestinian sovereignty
> is defined and titled solely to the Jewish nation under international law.
> 
> If Palestine's "permanent" population dates back for centuries
> and not colonial settlers, why define them as any non-Jew
> passing in the land for no more than 2 years?
> 
> The Arab majority wasn't created by peaceful means.
> When Ashrawi's 'self governance' is a colony run by Mecca under
> exclusive Arab domination over Middle East and Africa - it's not guns?


Palestine has international borders. Who says they don't?

Link?


rylah said:


> The US agreement was with Britain, confirms that Palestinian sovereignty
> is defined and titled solely to the Jewish nation under international law.


Who says?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> How depicted something isn't an argument, defining "Palestine borders" as anything
> outside Arab hegemony, means that Palestine can't have a defined territory.
> 
> The US agreement was with Britain, confirms that Palestinian sovereignty
> is defined and titled solely to the Jewish nation under international law.
> 
> If Palestine's "permanent" population dates back for centuries
> and not colonial settlers, why define them as any non-Jew
> passing in the land for no more than 2 years?
> 
> The Arab majority wasn't created by peaceful means.
> When Ashrawi's 'self governance' is a colony run by Mecca under
> exclusive Arab domination over Middle East and Africa - it's not guns?


How many times are you going to spam that video?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Al-Awda PRRC Land Day Commemoration​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has international borders. Who says they don't?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Link?



Titled with Jewish sovereignty. When you frame Palestine as anything outside Arab rule,
and demand it becomes colony of an Arab sate from Yemen to North Africa,
then you're saying international borders can't apply by definition.

Who says?
The US Constitution.

Read the *Anglo-American convention* of 1924,confirming the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922, making the Balfour Declaration and Jewish title for re-constitution US law, passing in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, a binding international treaty.
*Know what makes a law 'international'? *


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> How many times are you going to spam that video?



Because Yasser Arafat admits 'Palestine' is merely to cover your imperialist greed 
for exclusive Arab hegemony over the entire Middle East and North Africa?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Titled with Jewish sovereignty. When you frame Palestine as anything outside Arab rule,
> and demand it becomes colony of an Arab sate from Yemen to North Africa,
> then you're saying international borders can't apply by definition.
> 
> Who says?
> The US Constitution.
> 
> Read the *Anglo-American convention* of 1924,confirming the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922, making the Balfour Declaration and Jewish title for re-constitution US law, passing in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, a binding international treaty.
> *Know what makes a law 'international'? *


The US is not the arbiter of international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defending Al-Naqab​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Liberation Organizing: Consolidating Gains in the Face of the New McCarthyism​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The US is not the arbiter of international law.



The US doesn't have to, international law is a treaty between states.
By signing the Balfour Declaration and Jewish re-constitution into US law,
it  confirms the existing international law ratified earlier by the League of Nations.

When assuming that without arbiters the US law doesn't apply,
does it mean you can murder Americans until
someone else said otherwise?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Al-Aqsa Under Attack! Ramadan in Palestine Under Israeli Occupation – Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (Pt.1)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Are attitudes towards Palestine shifting in the US? | The Bottom Line​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 5726 - Ramzy Baroud on Israel, Palestine and Mali - 6/20/22​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Book Launch Special: "Our Vision for Liberation" with Ramzy Baroud, Ilan Pappé & Ghada Karmi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lamis Deek, Al Awda Rise To Return Conference 5-7-2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Misreporting Palestine: Western Media, Double Standards & the Sins of Omission with Ahmed Alnaouq​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep 62 - Pressure and Posturing​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 60 - When Jews were against pogroms with Nur​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine joined the Arab League in 1974.



Didn't you tell us, like 5 minutes ago,
it was a *"crime"* for Israelis to call them Arabs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sheikh Jarrah & the Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem & Beyond​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sheikh Jarrah & the Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem & Beyond​



The same people claiming they're against apartheid,
think ethnic cleansing is when they can't have an
exclusively Arab neighborhood?

No wonder,
neither they ever allow Africans
in any of the Pali-Arab governments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

One Year On: UNDER FIRE, UNDER SIEGE – GAZA YOUTH SPEAK OUT​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Standing up for student solidarity with Palestine featuring Pink Floyd's Roger Waters​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep 63 - Effective or Respected with Max from Palestine Action​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel & Palestine: Why It Matters in Congress (Part 1 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Human Rights, Occupation & Democracy (Part 2 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settlements, Annexation & the 2-State Solution (Part 3 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Gaza Strip (Part 4 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Refugees and the Role of UNRWA (Part 5 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Free Speech & the Right to Protest (Part 6 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

U.S. Aid to Israel & the Palestinians (Part 7 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Politics & Governance (Part 8 of 8)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mr. Biden Goes to the Middle East​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Heat: Biden’s Middle East visit​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice​


----------



## P F Tinmore

STOP CENSORING VOICES FOR PALESTINE​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Grassroots Protests & Violent Repression by the Palestinian Authority​


----------



## P F Tinmore

13th Education Webinar | Israel’s attack on Palestinian Civil Society​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defending Masafer Yatta with Basel Adra | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jenin rises: 20 years after the second intifada​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel lobby's war on ethnic studies with Robin D. G. Kelley and Lara Kiswani | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How students are fighting ADL's smear campaigns | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defund Racism - Responding to the National Call from Palestine​


			https://defundracism.org/


----------



## P F Tinmore

Huwaida Arraf   Lawfare and Legal Challenges in the USA​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The cost of speaking out for Palestinian rights | UpFront​


----------



## P F Tinmore

12 Years of Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five; a Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Media Workshop at Palestine Rising To Return 14th National Conference​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel-Palestine: Can a one-state solution work? | The Stream​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/abbas-called-for-the-end-of-israel-while-standing-next-to-president-biden/











						PA officials: Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall
					

Judge Tayseer Al-Tamimi says Al-Aqsa Mosque, including Jewish holy site, is Islamic and belongs to Muslims alone




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




Just for starters the " One State Solution" will never work. I happened to hear Joe Biden's speech when he was over there and he stated all three Religions have ties to that region and EVERYONE should have access to those sites and Jerusalem,  Something the Palestinians don't believe in
He also stated negotiations should be along the 67 Lines with some minor land swaps.  He said NOTHING about " Right of Return"






						Palestinians: Eight Million Refugees Must Return to Israel
					

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is facing criticism from Palestinian refugees for saying that he does not want to "flood" Israel with millions of refugees. Abbas made his statement during a meeting in his Ramallah office earlier this week




					www.gatestoneinstitute.org
				




One more reason.  Who will guarantee that the Israelis will have equal rights in practicing their religion, playing a role in Gov't, getting a education, etc?   

The " One State Solution" is DOA


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat on Root of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Noura Erakat on Root of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict​



Simple, 

Arab imperialism -


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Simple,
> 
> Arab imperialism -


Spamming that video again?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 64 - Nobody is too young to colonize​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Spamming that video again?



There's a reason you can't address it.

Reveals the goals of Arab imperialism - also include Africa.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Persistent Structural Inequalities: Settler Colonialism, Segregation and Apartheid​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nakba Today: A Conversation with Bashir Abu-Manneh, Sherene Seikaly and Nadia Abu El-Haj​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ongoing Nakba: Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza, and Historic Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Prospect for Change in Palestine in 2021: A Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The State of Palestine Due to the "State of Israel" w/ Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MJB12741

So funny Tinmore wastes his life posting all his propaganda that nobody reads.  Oh well, can't blame Israel for that & you gotta love him for displaying his worthless existence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Edward Said Conversation With Bill Moyers​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

MJB12741 said:


> So funny Tinmore wastes his life posting all his propaganda that nobody reads.  Oh well, can't blame Israel for that & you gotta love him for displaying his worthless existence.


As I have said many times, it burns him up that the Jewish State exists. Enjoy 😉 it!🇮🇱👍


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Supreme Court Opens Door to "Legalized" Ethnic Cleansing Inside the Green Line​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Edward Said Conversation With Bill Moyers​



Edward Said made a career
whitewashing Arab colonialism and
the history of worst mass enslavement...









						ELDER: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade?
					

As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:




					torontosun.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

’48 Palestinians: Popular Resistance for Palestinian Unity​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin talks about Gaza, Palestine, Israel, BDS, and her film: Gaza Fights For Freedom​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The US-Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Rania Khalek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Targeting Palestine Activism in the United States: Suppression of American Constitutional Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> There's a reason you can't address it.
> 
> Reveals the goals of Arab imperialism - also include Africa.


Arafat is dead.


----------



## P F Tinmore

* Mariam Afifi, a Palestinian activist and musician who is a Contrabassist at the Palestine Youth Orchestra,

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Students session: A message of Hope​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep 5: Featuring Lema Nazeeh - "Palestinian: Beyond Conflict"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine 101 with Abby Martin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib hold news conference on travel restrictions​


----------



## P F Tinmore

US and Palestine: Shoot to Kill Policies and Transnational Resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A Briefing on the 1,000 Palestinians in Masafer Yatta Facing Eviction & President Biden's Visit​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem: Existence Is Resistance | Al Jazeera Close Up​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hamas official talks to Al Jazeera about Israel conflict​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kumi Now Online - Week 32 - Indigenous Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish leaders have betrayed, failed our community’ | Mideast News Hour with Caroline Glick​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Charities in the US using tax free donations to violate international law.*

Defund Racism July 2022 Webinar​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dr. Golbarg Bashi and Dr. Michael Spath discuss her creation of a series of children's books.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Christian Zionism in the Mainline Church and American Civil Religion​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Weaponization of Antisemitism with Mark Weber and Dr. Michael Spath​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's war on Gaza and Jerusalem with Lara Elborno, Michael Schirtzer, Joharah Baker | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hannah Weisfeld – Ending the Occupation for the good of all​


----------



## P F Tinmore

WOT Film Festival | Panel Discussion | USA vs Al-Arian​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More bullshit terrorist propaganda.*

Before the Palestine 6, There Were the Holy Land 5​


----------



## P F Tinmore

WOT Film Festival | Panel Discussion | We Are Many​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel squeezing every last dollar out of Palestine.*

Salt, Sewage and Sinkholes: The Death of the Dead Sea | Foreign Correspondent​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Islamic Movement in Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Future of the US-Israel Relationship​


----------



## P F Tinmore

An interview with Rabbi Alissa Wise​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rabbi Dovid Weiss: Zionism has created 'rivers of blood' | Talk to Al Jazeera​


----------



## P F Tinmore

‘In Israel and the US, an assault on democracy using the language of law’ | Caroline Glick​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights    2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PhillyDSA Presents History of Palestinian Liberation Movement with Rabbi Alissa Wise and Sumaya Awad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel vs Axis of Resistance: A New Era of Mutually-Assured Destruction, w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: So-Called Self-Hating and Anti-Semitic​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: David Lloyd Opening Remarks​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: Student Movement(s) for Justice in Palestine'​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Rabbi Dovid Weiss: Zionism has created 'rivers of blood' | Talk to Al Jazeera​



Quiet the opposite, only Zionism prevents bloodshed in the Middle East.

There're cities in the US with higher homicide rate
in a decade than the casualties of the conflict -
 - on both sides.


----------



## P F Tinmore

: Palestine, Israel, and the Assault on Academic Freedom: Legal Panel discussion​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel, and the Assault on Academic Freedom: Attacks on Academic Freedom​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel, and the Assault on Academic Freedom: Academic Freedom in Question​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: "Suppressing Discourse" Stephen Zunes​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: the War on Ideas​


----------



## alexa

Student Movements for justice for Palestinians have of course be joined by the attack on  human rights groups, itself an attack on Palestinian civil society.  Israel is now blatantly acting as an authoritarian society and although Europe and the US find it impossible to accept this, because they too are moving in an authoritarian direction they still allow Israel to carry on in this way.  I think its 2 or 3 years ago now that they stopped allowing HRW into Israel so that people could pretend they did not know what Israel was up to.  That was the beginning.  Calling respectable human rights agencies 'terrorist' is the last stop and the West, still talking about 2 States, will forget it tomorrow.









						Israeli Raid on Seven Human Rights Groups Is Attack on Palestinian Civil Society
					

Israeli forces raided, ransacked and shuttered offices of seven leading Palestinian human rights organizations.




					truthout.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Real Apartheid - Phony Terrorism*

Israel Loathes Human Rights Organizations​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine, Israel and the Assault on Academic Freedom: "Taboo Words"​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Two States or One: The Future of Israelis and Palestinians (Full Length)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

AIPAC vs Democracy: with Ruth Messinger and Mik Moore​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peter Beinart: The Israel Lobby Is Spending Millions to Defeat Progressive Democrats​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Is AIPAC Spending Millions in Primary to Defeat Rep. Andy Levin, a Former Synagogue President?​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
✪    This discussion Thread is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
※→  et al,

*(COMMENTARY)*

All that seems to happen  →  is an exchange of post-published cut-n-paste propaganda material that passes for excerpts from social media interaction.  It does not really reflect the man-on-the-street view.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Our Vision for Liberation​
Ramzy Baroud discusses his recent book, "Our Vision for Liberation," co-edited with Illan Pappe.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: Perspectives on the One State with Yousef Munayyer and Peter Beinart​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 67 Expect Radical Change with Hebh Jamal​


----------



## MJB12741

Ya gotta love Tinmore for wasting his life away on this board influencing no one.   As for me, back to the pool party.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Ya gotta love Tinmore for wasting his life away on this board influencing no one.   As for me, back to the pool party.


Over 33 thousand views. Somebody is looking at this stuff.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 58 - Reclaiming the Narrative with Jamal Elshayyal​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 66 - Slava Palestina! with Yara Eid​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Arafat is dead.



Is Arab imperialism dead?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Over 33 thousand views. Somebody is looking at this stuff.


Excuse me, over 63 thousand.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Excuse me, over 63 thousand.



You watched that over 63 thousand times?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Over 33 thousand views. Somebody is looking at this stuff.





P F Tinmore said:


> Excuse me, over 63 thousand.



Who is watching this stuff?

*Flat earth - 528,000,000 results*









						A Note on Arabic Literacy and Translation - ALTA Language Services
					

Greece annually translates five times more books from English than the entire Arab world, and currently, 65 million Arab adults are illiterate. These



					www.altalang.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

The 70th Palestinian Nakba Day – The Jewish perspective​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hank Hanegraaff: A Gospel Response to Christian Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

US Lobbyists for Israeli Spyware Firm Could Face Prison​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Straight Talk with Renowned Rapper Lowkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore

UN Commissioner: ‘Apartheid’ not enough to describe Israeli settler colonialism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 68 - What would you do for freedom?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PANEL: Israeli intelligence Collusion with Facebook, Google To Censor Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

LIVE with Roger Waters and Gabor Maté, on Israel/Palestine, Gaza war, music, and more​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Chris Hedges Report: Hip hop, censorship, and Palestinian resistance​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*This guy is a fucking goof.      *

Caroline Glick: The six false, failed assumptions of the two-state solution | Mideast News Hour​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Vogue Caught Erasing 'Palestine' From Gigi Hadid Post​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gigi Hadid CENSORED By Vogue For Supporting Palestine'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More terrorist name calling bullshit*​*from the bullshit state of Israel.*

Israeli Raids on Palestinian Civil Society Organizations — The Costs of International Inaction​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*More terrorist name calling bullshit*​Israel's Unrelenting Campaign against Palestinian NGOs and the US Response​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's War on the Media with Mariam Barghouti & Mona Shtaya​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why is the Mainstream Media Silent on Palestine? A Webinar hosted by Miko Peled​
Mnar Muhawesh Adley: Founder, Producer, and Host at #MintPressNews Rania Khalek: Journalist, Producer, and Host at #UnauthorizedDisclosure Anya Parampil : Journalist at #TheGrayzone


----------



## P F Tinmore

Not Backing Down: Radhika Sainath on Censorship Attempts at UMass Amherst​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Future of Palestine - A Conversation with Dr. Hanan Ashrawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Christians of Palestine, Life Behind the Wall​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Resistance: Journalists Khaled Barakat/Arnold August​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Welcome – Sir Vincent Fean, Chair of Day 1 and Keynote Speaker Dr Hanan Ashrawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian youth speak: Perspectives on struggle and liberation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza, cyberwarfare and resistance | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Gaza ceasefire a temporary truce as Israel will attack again​


----------



## P F Tinmore

‎Rethinking Palestine: From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack - Aug 29, 2022



					podcasts.apple.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

‎Rethinking Palestine: Palestinian Resistance and Shifting the Media Narrative with Marwa Fatafta on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep Palestinian Resistance and Shifting the Media Narrative with Marwa Fatafta - Jun 9, 2021



					podcasts.apple.com


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Putting the Thoughts Together,- vs - Rebroadcasting...
※→ P F TINEMORE, et al,

On Page 171 of this thread, you re-posted about a dozen; one after the other.  How is a poor old man like me supposed to put that all together?  

Are you actually discussing the topic at hand?   OR   Are you acting as a broadcast repeater for these various propaganda outlets?   






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Putting the Thoughts Together,- vs - Rebroadcasting...
> ※→ P F TINEMORE, et al,
> 
> On Page 171 of this thread, you re-posted about a dozen; one after the other.  How is a poor old man like me supposed to put that all together?
> 
> Are you actually discussing the topic at hand?   OR   Are you acting as a broadcast repeater for these various propaganda outlets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


I am not the only one who can post in this thread. Anyone can post what they like. This is a discussion board. I post a variety of people from a variety of sources with the hope that discussions will follow.

Anyone can respond/discuss/refute anything I post. That is the purpose of a discussion board.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Conversations on Palestine with Omar Barghouti​


----------



## P F Tinmore

'Gaza Fights Back' Watch Party, with Dr. Ramzy Baroud and Dan Cohen​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I am not the only one who can post in this thread. Anyone can post what they like. This is a discussion board. I post a variety of people from a variety of sources with the hope that discussions will follow.
> 
> Anyone can respond/discuss/refute anything I post. That is the purpose of a discussion board.


What is there to discuss about your spam dumping of YouTube videos?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> What is there to discuss about your spam dumping of YouTube videos?


Nothing if you agree with them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Path to Peace: Examining the One-State Solution for Israel-Palestine (Panel 1)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Path to Peace: Examining a One-State Solution for Israel-Palestine (Panel 2)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Path To Peace: Examining a One-State Solution for Israel-Palestine (Panel 3)​
​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jeff Halper - Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine | Pluto Live​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RCPI Webinar: Author Discussion with Rashid Khalidi on The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> The 70th Palestinian Nakba Day – The Jewish perspective​


Here we go again… Hasidic Jews against Zionism.  Not capable of researching why this is so.  
I wonder what this “ individual “ would say Re; their being forbidden to visit their Holy Sites? 👍🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Joseph Massad on Peace Is War: Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians​


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Putting the Thoughts Together,- vs - Rebroadcasting...
> ※→ P F TINEMORE, et al,
> 
> On Page 171 of this thread, you re-posted about a dozen; one after the other.  How is a poor old man like me supposed to put that all together?
> 
> Are you actually discussing the topic at hand?   OR   Are you acting as a broadcast repeater for these various propaganda outlets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R





P F Tinmore said:


> I am not the only one who can post in this thread. Anyone can post what they like. This is a discussion board. I post a variety of people from a variety of sources with the hope that discussions will follow.
> 
> Anyone can respond/discuss/refute anything I post. That is the purpose of a discussion board.



Our friend RoccoR is making a sound argument,
about the shallow nature of 'anti-Israel' activism
to which you have yet to respond.

All you do is troll with random videos,
which you don't watch beyond the headline, and
only to evade discussion, because you can't morally
defend your position, nor admit what you actually believe.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Our friend RoccoR is making a sound argument,
> about the shallow nature of 'anti-Israel' activism
> to which you have yet to respond.
> 
> All you do is troll with random videos,
> which you don't watch beyond the headline, and
> only to evade discussion, because you can't morally
> defend your position, nor admit what you actually believe.


Point out any issue you disagree with and let's discuss.

Isn't that what a discussion board for?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Orinoco Tribune - Editorial Talk #4 - Palestine: Zionism & Liberation Struggle with Khaled Barakat​
​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Does Trump's 'deal of the century' make Middle East peace impossible? | The Bottom Line​


----------



## P F Tinmore

‎Rethinking Palestine: Palestinian Resistance and Shifting the Media Narrative with Marwa Fatafta on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep Palestinian Resistance and Shifting the Media Narrative with Marwa Fatafta - Jun 9, 2021



					podcasts.apple.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Using Indigeneity in the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation
					

Indigeneity has re-emerged within the discourse on Palestine and is becoming a facet of political mobilization.




					al-shabaka.org
				




This commentary addresses these questions by fleshing out the notions of settler colonialism and indigeneity and the relationship between the two through an exploration of the process of Israeli settler colonialism that created Palestinian indigeneity. It then discusses the limitations of the application of international law to indigenous struggles and concludes with thoughts on how to better incorporate the notion of Palestinian indigeneity in the Palestinian quest for freedom, justice, and equality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Anti-Israel Prof Calls To Decolonize USA Also​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Raef Zreik – Palestine as a Question​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Taking Direct Action For Palestine - With Huda Ammori​


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel, turning blood into money.*

2021 Edward Said Memorial Lecture with Susan Abulhawa​


----------



## basquebromance

when folks talk about Palestine, they about it as  a land, not as  a people. even though Palestinians are the indigenous people of that land


----------



## basquebromance

Historian Edward Gibbon in 1776 noted that ‘Phoenicia & Palestine will forever live in the collective memory of mankind’

Gibbon astutely observed that Romans, Persians Arabs wanted Palestine for extraordinary fertility of its soil, opulence beauty purity of its air


----------



## basquebromance

Kamal Salibi's "A House of Many Mansions" is required reading for anyone trying to understand Lebanon's history, and it was an enormous help today as I deliberated whether Palestinian refugee flows contributed to the 1958 crisis in Lebanon


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> In Jenin, the Israelis have found a capable adversary, a group known as the Jenin Brigades, which has carried out shootings on Israeli military checkpoints and engages in armed clashes during Israeli raids. Now, when the Israelis enter Jenin, they are not just met by rocks, but by bullets too.



Will Al Jazeera also dig him from the grave to parade
the streets for a second burial in prime time?


----------



## P F Tinmore

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/antisemitism-news/students-learn-to-tackle-campus-antisemitism-in-special-webinar/2022/09/22/


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
✪ Again with the Cut'n'Paste
※→ et al,

*(COMMENTARY)*

Our friend P F Tinmore injects the Cut'n'Paste Model; as if it represents evil doing.





*(CONTINUED)*

Antisemitism is simply opposition.  It is NOT the advocacy or call for violence. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) is about as hostile as touch football.  CAM is nothing like the Palestinianz.



			
				Newsweek - MSN  Opinion said:
			
		

> Of course, campus-based anti-Zionism is on the Jewish communal radar screen and a host of organizations and initiatives have sprung up over the past two decades to combat it. Some of the most effective groups are StandWithUs, Jewish on Campus, Hasbara Fellowships, Club Z, and many others. Efforts such as StandwithUs' letter campaign to colleges has also enjoyed high visibility.



President Abbas is about as real as a Three-Dollar Bill.
​Limerick: There was a Young Lady of Niger​





There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.​
I'm not sure who is riding the Tiger, but I expect the Arab Palestinians to be on the Tiger's menu.






_Most Respectfully,
R_
.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ✪ Again with the Cut'n'Paste
> ※→ et al,
> 
> *(COMMENTARY)*
> 
> Our friend P F Tinmore injects the Cut'n'Paste Model; as if it represents evil doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(CONTINUED)*
> 
> Antisemitism is simply opposition.  It is NOT the advocacy or call for violence. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) is about as hostile as touch football.  CAM is nothing like the Palestinianz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsweek - MSN  Opinion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, campus-based anti-Zionism is on the Jewish communal radar screen and a host of organizations and initiatives have sprung up over the past two decades to combat it. Some of the most effective groups are StandWithUs, Jewish on Campus, Hasbara Fellowships, Club Z, and many others. Efforts such as StandwithUs' letter campaign to colleges has also enjoyed high visibility.
Click to expand...

It is funny that Israel is spending hundreds of millions to combat something that "is not working."


----------



## P F Tinmore

__





						Terrorists Shoot at Regavim Tour near Hebron
					

The establishment of cemeteries on open lands in Area C is part of the massive PA Arab takeover of area C and the suffocation of Jewish settlements.




					www.jewishpress.com
				



What doofus wrote this? Shooting foreign settlers in your country is not terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
✪ Again with the Cut'n'Paste
※→ et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> It is funny that Israel is spending hundreds of millions to combat something that "is not working."


*(COMMENT)*

As strange as it might sound, there is a foreign strategy in which the _*status quo*_ remains intact.  That the current situation is much better than an expansion of the conflict that might widen even more.

Many nations have observed that the best course of action is to follow the course and outcome of the century-old decisions made previously by the senior of the Allied Power.  This is NOT as strange as it sounds.  In western law, the impact of the 12th Century practice of _*Stare Decesis*_ ('to stand by things decide) as a doctrine has had the greatest impact for more than 200 years.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists Shoot at Regavim Tour near Hebron
> 
> 
> The establishment of cemeteries on open lands in Area C is part of the massive PA Arab takeover of area C and the suffocation of Jewish settlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What doofus wrote this? Shooting foreign settlers in your country is not terrorism.



Framing an ethnic minority as  a crime,
and 'foreigners' eligible for shooting
how is that different from the KKK?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 71 - Just Believe the Lies​


----------



## rylah

Ridiculous Palestinian Propaganda of the Day​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Holy Land Trust -Elias D'eis​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Does Trump's 'deal of the century' make Middle East peace impossible? | The Bottom Line​


Another question; Does Abbas demands make Middle East Peace impossible?  I would say YES 🇮🇱


----------



## Rigby5

Jerusalem is not at all a Hebrew homeland, but instead about the most genocidal invasion ever, where Joshua's pride in murdering all the native Canaanites in Jericho, is well documented.
Clearly the Hebrew tribes are not from the Land of Canaan, never lived there, are not native, and have no right to be there.
In fact, they always caused so much trouble, that even their puppet masters, the Romans, how had returned them to power after the Assyrians and Babylonians had defeated them, that the Romans expelled them as well.
It is obvious there is something totally wrong historically with Hebrew culture, that they can not get along with anyone.
And present Israel is no better.
Palestine was legally created by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, in 1920, and that makes the following Jewish immigration, Zionism, and the creation of Israel, totally and completely illegal.
Jews in Israel are not native and have no right to be there.


----------



## Rigby5

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Another question; Does Abbas demands make Middle East Peace impossible?  I would say YES 🇮🇱



Since even the UN does not give Jerusalem to Israel, I see no problem with any demands by Abbas.
The problems seem to be Israel's lack of lawfulness.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Rigby5 said:


> Since even the UN does not give Jerusalem to Israel, I see no problem with any demands by Abbas.
> The problems seem to be Israel's lack of lawfulness.


The “ lack of lawfulness “ happened in 1967 when the UN “ peacekeepers “ cooperated with Nasser. Try to educate yourself and read Abbas last remarks; Israel has been “ occupying Palestine” for over 70 years It ‘s obvious to anyone with a brain 🧠 that his END GOAL is NOT the “ Two State Solution “ Please tell us by what authority the PLO had the right Jews would not be allowed at the Western Wall if they had E Jerusalem?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> The “ lack of lawfulness “ happened in 1967 when the UN “ peacekeepers “ cooperated with Nasser. Try to educate yourself and read Abbas last remarks; Israel has been “ occupying Palestine” for over 70 years It ‘s obvious to anyone with a brain 🧠 that his END GOAL is NOT the “ Two State Solution “ Please tell us by what authority the PLO had the right Jews would not be allowed at the Western Wall if they had E Jerusalem?


Looking at my prior post; Tinmore has no response. How typical 👍🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 72 - Choose your own oppressor​


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Looking at my prior post; Tinmore has no response. How typical 👍🇮🇱


Sure. You got some Ranch for that word salad?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure. You got some Ranch for that word salad?


You have the Vegetables for it?  Please tell us why Israel would put themselves in a worse position then prior to 1967 ??  Read CAREFULLY;    There will be no response


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> You have the Vegetables for it?  Please tell us why Israel would put themselves in a worse position then prior to 1967 ??  Read CAREFULLY;    There will be no response


Israel has made its bed, now it must sleep in it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ICAHD USA Webinar  - The State of Israel vs The Jews - February 15th,  2022​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has made its bed, now it must sleep in it.


Deflection Still didn’t answer the question. Get those Vegetables 🥕 out 🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2022 | Day 2 | Session 1: Congressional Plenary​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ✪ Again with the Cut'n'Paste
> ※→ et al,
> 
> *(COMMENTARY)*
> 
> Our friend P F Tinmore injects the Cut'n'Paste Model; as if it represents evil doing.
> 
> View attachment 703119
> *(CONTINUED)*
> 
> Antisemitism is simply opposition.  It is NOT the advocacy or call for violence. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) is about as hostile as touch football.  CAM is nothing like the Palestinianz.
> 
> 
> 
> President Abbas is about as real as a Three-Dollar Bill.
> ​Limerick: There was a Young Lady of Niger​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a young lady of Niger
> Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
> They returned from the ride
> With the lady inside,
> And the smile on the face of the tiger.​
> I'm not sure who is riding the Tiger, but I expect the Arab Palestinians to be on the Tiger's menu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





RoccoR said:


> The Combat Antisemitism Movement


Real antisemitism or that fake IHRA shit?


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> Jerusalem is not at all a Hebrew homeland, but instead about the most genocidal invasion ever, where Joshua's pride in murdering all the native Canaanites in Jericho, is well documented.
> Clearly the Hebrew tribes are not from the Land of Canaan, never lived there, are not native, and have no right to be there.
> In fact, they always caused so much trouble, that even their puppet masters, the Romans, how had returned them to power after the Assyrians and Babylonians had defeated them, that the Romans expelled them as well.
> It is obvious there is something totally wrong historically with Hebrew culture, that they can not get along with anyone.
> And present Israel is no better.
> Palestine was legally created by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, in 1920, and that makes the following Jewish immigration, Zionism, and the creation of Israel, totally and completely illegal.
> Jews in Israel are not native and have no right to be there.



How is it called when you frame 
an ethnic group as a crime?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Real antisemitism or that fake IHRA shit?



Fake or real racism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2022 | Day 2 | Session 2: Palestine/Israel in Domestic U.S. Politics​


----------



## P F Tinmore

'The War Of Public Opinion Is Over'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lowkey, Rayeed and Zarefah cast Gaza Under Attack live'​


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2021 | Ending Business As Usual: Advancing Palestinian Rights in the Biden Era​


----------



## P F Tinmore

‎Rethinking Palestine: From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack - Aug 29, 2022



					podcasts.apple.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> ‎Rethinking Palestine: From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack on Apple Podcasts
> 
> 
> ‎Show Rethinking Palestine, Ep From Jenin to Gaza to Nablus: Palestinian Resistance Under Attack - Aug 29, 2022
> 
> 
> 
> podcasts.apple.com



"Resistance attacked" - if the attack is made up, resistance is irrelevant.

That's your weakness - do you have constructive goals?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Impact of the Israeli Occupation on Palestinian Science, Education, and Research​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sabra and Shatila 40 years on | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sabra and Shatila, A Bleeding Memory, Taysir Salameh Salameh interview​


----------



## P F Tinmore

US-Saudi agenda fails to materialize in Lebanese elections​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Fight For Palestine With Lowkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Fear, Loathing, Lynch Mobs​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Sabra and Shatila 40 years on | EI Podcast​


 🥱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 73 - Get Over It but Never Forget​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate"​

I have a problem with Miriam Elman. She says that Zionists do not shout down Palestinian events. But she does not mention the Palestinian events that are cancelled before they can start.. She also mentioned that Palestinian academic freedom was not violated. She didn't mention Joseph Massad, Rabab Abdulhadi. Steven Salaita, Norm Finkelstein...

Not to mention that in Palestine schools and universities are bombed. Students and faculty are arrested. students who want to study abroad are denied travel. Visiting students and professors are denied entrance visas.

How can somebody so ignorant be in a discussion?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


YAWN….  I wonder what Jewish Education would be like if the Palestinians controlled it? 
Lesson 1) The Holocaust never happened 
             2) Correction; Their behavior caused it
            3) Jews have no religious claims to that region; it’s a myth
     That’s just for starters


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Heat  w/Hanan Ashrawi, Ali Abunimah & Amotz Asa-El (May 13 2021)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The sabotage campaign against Palestine solidarity with Max Blumenthal | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norman Finkelstein: Should Israel Exist?\​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Norman Finkelstein: Should Israel Exist?\​


Finally he admits he doesn’t believe in the “ Two State Solution “ which is why there will be no “ Right of Return “
“ Self determination of the Palestinians?” But not “ Self determined of the Jewish people?”   🇮🇱  LOL 😆


----------



## P F Tinmore

How anti-Semitism smears impact Palestine activists | EI Podcast​

The only thing Israel has is name calling.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Leila Farsakh and Jeff Halper Palestine/Israel: Strategies for a Just Peace; Jan. 14, 2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Olive Oil: The Story of Palestine - The Roundtable Perspective 315​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Perspectives on Palestine - Day Two​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Perspectives on Palestine Panel - Day One​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: Anti-Palestinian Racism: Motives, Manifestations and Solutions​


----------



## P F Tinmore

UC Riverside MEIS & MESC Panel on Palestine/Israel Conflict & Resolution​
​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Development of Palestinian Narrative in 2021 Israeli Aggression on Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Leila Farsakh and Jeff Halper Palestine/Israel: Strategies for a Just Peace; Jan. 14, 2022​



Arabic has no word for 'peace'.


----------



## P F Tinmore

CENSORED For Criticizing Israel, Katie Halper Speaks Out | Krystal Kyle & Friends Podcast​

The Video That Got Me Fired: Israel IS An Apartheid State​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Anti-Semitism on the political left - UpFront​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> CENSORED For Criticizing Israel, Katie Halper Speaks Out | Krystal Kyle & Friends Podcast​
> 
> The Video That Got Me Fired: Israel IS An Apartheid State​


YAWN….. Translation;  The Israelis should live with a Palestinian majority. 🇮🇱🥱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Haidar Eid  The 2 State Solution​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Katie Halper: The Hill TV fired me for defending critics of Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

At HRC: L4P & Shams address the Israeli colonial policy of detaining Palestinian university students​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jew Asks Palestinians This? 🇵🇸 (shocking answers) in Ramallah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Lawyer Calls Out Liberal Zionism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nadia Hijab - Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian Lawyer Calls Out Liberal Zionism​



Because Liberal Zionism deserves more of her attention,
than the gays executed by her fellow Islamo-Nazis?









						Shock, questions after gruesome killing of gay Palestinian
					

JERUSALEM (AP) — The severed head and decapitated torso of a 25-year-old Palestinian were discovered on the side of a road in the occupied West Bank, police said Friday, confirming gruesome details of a killing that shocked Palestinian society.




					apnews.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Katie Halper: The Hill TV fired me for defending critics of Israel​



Every time it's a different version...

Maybe she's not that good of a journalist.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Olive Oil: The Story of Palestine - The Roundtable Perspective 315​



*(QUESTION)*

How come there's no harvest festivals in Islam?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli General's Son Argues For One State Solution​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli General's Son Argues For One State Solution​


Funny, he made no reference to what this “ One State” would be called  🥱🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Labor, Palestinians, Zionism & The SFSU AMED Program With Professor Rabab Abdulhadi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Escalates Abuse of Palestinian Children​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Drift Racer Noor Daoud Interview on the occasion of the International Women's Day 2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Right of Return ft. Lamis Deek​

Sit Down Interview with Lamis Deek​


----------



## P F Tinmore

UNGA: SR Francesca Albanese presents her report calling 4 dismantling Israeli settler-colonial occ.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Current Israeli-Palestinian Crisis: Possibilities for New Junctures or a Return to Status Quo?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Francesca Albanese at UNGA: Negotiated solution 4 Palestine-Israel ineffective,paradigm shift needed​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Current Israeli-Palestinian Crisis: Possibilities for New Junctures or a Return to Status Quo?​



When Arab supremacists join Communists -
to raise a red flag at the Temple Mount....

is that a victory or capitulation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Briahna Joy Gray: Audience REJECTS Bill Maher’s SOFTBALL Kanye Interview DEFENDING Israel Occupation​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Briahna Joy Gray: Audience REJECTS Bill Maher’s SOFTBALL Kanye Interview DEFENDING Israel Occupation​


YAWN 🥱


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Briahna Joy Gray: Audience REJECTS Bill Maher’s SOFTBALL Kanye Interview DEFENDING Israel Occupation​


Aren’t YOU the one says there is No Such thing as AntiSemitism; Jews use it as a excuse when Israel is criticized? Kanye West NEVER mentioned Israel . Just one example


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nadia Hijab on Moving Beyond Statehood Debates and on to How We Get There​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Cinema as Resistance✦ Annemarie Jacir, Susan Abulhawa, Farah Nabulsi and Tamer Nafar in conversation​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Panel discussion | The Antisemitism Label: Fighting Discrimination V. Silencing Critical Voices​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Panel discussion | For and Against Palestinians: Lawfare within the US Judicial System​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Zionist Distortion of Palestinian History: In Conversation with Rashid Khalidi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Palestinian View: How Western Media Language Misrepresents Palestinians, Shields Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Welcome to Day 2 by Dr Phyllis Starkey, Victor Kattan introducing talk of Professor Michael Lynk​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 16 - Past & The Present with Farah Nabulsi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 75 - You're not welcome round here​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Ep. 75 - You're not welcome round here​


Agree! There wasn’t any AntiSemitism before 1948. I find this claim amusing. Kanya West NEVER mentioned 🇮🇱 Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mustafa Barghouti: The Palestinian struggle against oppression and occupation - IQ2 debates​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sonenshine Discussion: "The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate" by Kenneth Stern 4/5/22​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Nour Joudah: Mapping Decolonized Futures​


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2022 | Day 2 | Session 1: Congressional Plenary​


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2022 | Day 2 | Session 2: Palestine/Israel in Domestic U.S. Politics​


----------



## P F Tinmore

VPAD 2022 | Day 2 | Session 3: We Must Hold Israel Accountable Now​


----------



## P F Tinmore

20th Education Webinar | From Grassroots to Congress: Progressives Exposing Israeli Apartheid​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> 20th Education Webinar | From Grassroots to Congress: Progressives Exposing Israeli Apartheid​


YAWN.   No Israelis in “ Palestine” 🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

19th Education Webinar | Israel’s Assault on Palestinian Human Rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore

17th Education Webinar | Jerusalem: US Foreign Policy and its Impact​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Congressional Briefing: Israel's Treatment of US Citizens​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 76 - Greater of Two Evils​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: UN Special Rapporteur’s Milestone Report on Palestine: Resuming Rights-Based Discourse​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

With Michael Lynk: Int'l Community, Palestinian Self-Determination, & End Occupation: Responsibility​


----------



## P F Tinmore

One on One Express: Interview with activist and author Miko Peled​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The myth of Israel's self-defense and media coverage of Palestine with Greg Shupak | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

'The War Of Public Opinion Is Over'​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> 'The War Of Public Opinion Is Over'​



Really...the public opinion on Jews changed
from how it was framed a century ago?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

rylah said:


> Really...the public opinion on Jews changed
> from how it was framed a century ago?


Not going to get a response. 🇮🇱 ✡️ 
A better question would be Really…..the public opinion on Jews changed from how it was framed for over 2000 years?


----------



## rylah

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Not going to get a response. 🇮🇱 ✡️
> A better question would be Really…..the public opinion on Jews changed from how it was framed for over 2000 years?



Or how many nations acting on that opinion, managed to survive us?
Not to mention, could prosper as a minority in such conditions.

Today that Israel are returning on steroids,
exile becomes more of an Arab thing....


----------



## P F Tinmore

It is amazing how much money Israel spends just to silence Palestinians. Israel is exporting its occupation to other countries.

The Latest Target in the Israel Lobby’s War on Academia: Shahd Abusalama​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It is amazing how much money Israel spends just to silence Palestinians. Israel is exporting its occupation to other countries.
> 
> The Latest Target in the Israel Lobby’s War on Academia: Shahd Abusalama​



What is 'academic' about praising plane hijackers?

And shooting random buses on the road?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> What is 'academic' about praising plane hijackers?
> 
> And shooting random buses on the road?


It is academic to teach history.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Really...the public opinion on Jews changed
> from how it was framed a century ago?


More deflection.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 67 Expect Radical Change with Hebh Jamal​


----------



## P F Tinmore

One international lawyer interviews another.
    

Ep. 56 - Guerrilla Diplomacy with Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Really...the public opinion on Jews changed
> from how it was framed a century ago?


Has nothing to do with Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Noura Erakat: Palestine Under Attack + Yumna Patel Live In Bethlehem​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel knows all-out war with Hamas or Hezbollah would be a disaster​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 77 - Using your platform with Abby Martin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Abby Martin: What Corporate Media IGNORED About Biden's Trip To Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 18 - Is Racism in Vogue? with Qaher Harhash​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 74 - Resistance is the only option​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 70 - Rebranding the Final Solution​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norm Finkelstein Destroys Pro-Israel Talking Points​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Traces of Racial Exception: Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism | SOAS University of London​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Discussing that IHRA shit.

The New Antisemitism and the Contemporary Middle East​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Settler Colonialism and Palestine: A Conversation​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Why Israel Matters to Americans​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dismantling Israeli Settler Colonialism: In Conversation with Francesca Albanese (made with Spreaker​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Dismantling Israeli Settler Colonialism: In Conversation with Francesca Albanese (made with Spreaker​


 Viewed this for a few minutes and I couldn’t stop laughing. On one hand there is talk about “ Palestine “ and the right to “ self determination “  On the other hand there is talk among some for a “ One State Solution “ and Israel ‘s dismantling under Palestinian control For this reason alone things will never 👎 change 🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 07 - Call Your Representatives!​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norman Finkelstein on Israel & What's happening Here​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 78 - Walled Off with Vin Arfuso​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 03 - Akhaduha Mafroosheh with Comedian Amer Zahr​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PALCONV2020: The Youth Front for Palestine: Student Success Stories​


----------



## P F Tinmore

PALCONV2020: VIRTUAL GALA - Against All Odds: Palestine Prevails​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


The Israelis should get the F..K out of there...... Translation being; Not only do they not deserve a State but they do not belong in ANY part of the region.
I thank you; You have given ONE more reason why there will NEVER be " Right of Return"
   Your " tweet " undermines the " International Law" you hold so near and dear to your heart






						Israel Wiped Off UN Map
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
				




One more reason why there will never be " Right of Return"


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem, Palestine and Israel with Ilan Pappe​


----------



## P F Tinmore

On Impunity & Exceptionalism: Will Israel Be Held Accountable to International Law? Dr Ramzy Baroud​


----------



## P F Tinmore

History is Relevant: The Israeli New History and its Legacy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 3 Conversation with Diana Buttu​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Episode 1, Discussion with Noura Erakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 2: Adam Broomberg & Issa Amro on Hebron, Apartheid, Jewish Supremacy, Palestinian Solidarity.​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Ep. 2: Adam Broomberg & Issa Amro on Hebron, Apartheid, Jewish Supremacy, Palestinian Solidarity.​


Don’t know how others feel but I’m flattered that in the Middle of the Night Tinmore has nothing else to do


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Don’t know how others feel but I’m flattered that in the Middle of the Night Tinmore has nothing else to do


I live in my own time zone.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections, Episode 4:  Israel-Palestine: A Turning Point?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections, Episode 5: “Investigating Israel” with Lori Allen​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Historic and Contemporary Legacies of Palestinian Feminism: An Interview with Professor Nada Elia​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Forever wars, everywhere wars, excess population.

A discussion with Jeff Halper​


----------



## P F Tinmore

MARC LAMONT HILL SPEECH AT "NOT BACKING DOWN" PALESTINIAN RIGHTS PANEL AT UMASS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

LINDA SARSOUR SPEECH AT "NOT BACKING DOWN" PALESTINIAN RIGHTS PANEL AT UMASS​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 04 - The Charade​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Victory for free speech!" interview with Shahd Abusalama​


----------



## P F Tinmore

SiC Podcast: Smear Campaigns Against Palestinian Voices: A Conversation with Khaled Barakat​


----------



## P F Tinmore

UN envoy warns occupied West bank reaching boiling point​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Detention Without Trial: Salah Hammouri & the Palestinian Administrative Detainees​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
✪    Incitement
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Khaled Barakat was once a member of the Palestinian Front for the Liberalization of Palestine (PFLP) Political Bureau.   Members of such groups (like the PFLP) are generally subject to restrictive measures with "a view to combating terrorism" under the common position of the European Union.  Such people (like Khaled Barakat) are always suspect.
Khaled Barakat​


P F Tinmore said:


> SiC Podcast: Smear Campaigns Against Palestinian Voices: A Conversation with Khaled Barakat.   ​


*(COMMENT)*

Under the Human Rights Core Instrument (*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)(Article 20) propaganda for war - or the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

It really does NOT matter if you spice these discussions with themes like "Palestinian Liberation" or the language of what they term "Solidarity Movements" *IF* it inspires the escalation of violence *THEN* it is a violation of the Human Rights of those people with an alternative view.  From the encouragement of low-level street disturbances to the promotion of low-intensity conflict, it is a violation of the Human Rights of those people with an alternative view.  

If Khaled Barakat is being gaged, it is by the greater consensus in the International Community.  There is a relationship between free speech, hate speech, and incitement to violence.   They are branches from the same tree.  One is healthy (free speech), one needs medical assistance hate speech) and one needs a funeral (incitement to violence).    





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> I live in my own time zone.


That’s obvious l🇮🇱🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ✪    Incitement
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Khaled Barakat was once a member of the Palestinian Front for the Liberalization of Palestine (PFLP) Political Bureau.   Members of such groups (like the PFLP) are generally subject to restrictive measures with "a view to combating terrorism" under the common position of the European Union.  Such people (like Khaled Barakat) are always suspect.
> Khaled Barakat​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the Human Rights Core Instrument (*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*)(Article 20) propaganda for war - or the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> It really does NOT matter if you spice these discussions with themes like "Palestinian Liberation" or the language of what they term "Solidarity Movements" *IF* it inspires the escalation of violence *THEN* it is a violation of the Human Rights of those people with an alternative view.  From the encouragement of low-level street disturbances to the promotion of low-intensity conflict, it is a violation of the Human Rights of those people with an alternative view.
> 
> If Khaled Barakat is being gaged, it is by the greater consensus in the International Community.  There is a relationship between free speech, hate speech, and incitement to violence.   They are branches from the same tree.  One is healthy (free speech), one needs medical assistance hate speech) and one needs a funeral (incitement to violence).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


Of course you have always been part of Israel's smear campaign against the Palestinians.



RoccoR said:


> There is a relationship between free speech, hate speech, and incitement to violence.


Where does Khaled Barakat say anything like that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Dialogue that Matters with Marianne Williamson​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian-American Lana Shehadeh Shares Her Experience in the West Bank with Marianne Williamson​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
✪ Incitement
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

IMO →  Anyone NOT supporting and maintaining peace and security is clearly not in keeping with the international community's goal.  Membership in any organization promoting armed conflict • threats to the peace, and endorsing acts of aggression through the activities of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a threat. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does Khaled Barakat say anything like that?



*(COMMENT)*
.



			
				[URL='https://electronicintifada.net/people/khaled-barakat']Khaled Barakat[/URL] • [URL='https://electronicintifada.net/people/electronic-intifada']The Electronic Intifada[/URL] • 13 August 2020 said:
			
		

> Political and media campaigns for the Palestinian cause must work consciously to uphold the legitimacy of and normalize the armed resistance.



Khaled Barakat is a member of the PFLP.  But even more striking is the fact that is playing the role of the victim.  Arab Palestinians just love to play the victim at the hands of Israelis.  They love leaving a blood trail of allegations that Intelligence, Police, and Security Forces (IPSF), in some way → have crippled them by suppressing their civil and political rights.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ✪ Incitement
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> IMO →  Anyone NOT supporting and maintaining peace and security is clearly not in keeping with the international community's goal.  Membership in any organization promoting armed conflict • threats to the peace, and endorsing acts of aggression through the activities of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Khaled Barakat is a member of the PFLP.  But even more striking is the fact that is playing the role of the victim.  Arab Palestinians just love to play the victim at the hands of Israelis.  They love leaving a blood trail of allegations that Intelligence, Police, and Security Forces (IPSF), in some way → have crippled them by suppressing their civil and political rights.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


Nice deflection.


----------



## P F Tinmore

What is the Relationship Between Israel and the Far Right? Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi Explains​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What is ZIONISM? Palestinians Explain. | Ghada Karmi & Huda Ammori​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What is ZIONISM? Palestinians Explain. | Ghada Karmi & Huda Ammori​


Zionism is racist so there shouldn’t be a JEWISH STATE but the “ Palestinians” should have a State of their own because THEY are entitled to “ self determination?”  LOL 😂 
What else would one expect from a “ Palestinian “  They would LOVE to have control over Israel’s HOLY SITES pre 67 but that’s never happening. That is Racist ✡️🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian Journalists are Reclaiming their Right to Narrate, Rashid Khalidi | Zionism, Edward Said​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What Does Palestinian Liberation Mean? Ghada Karmi on a Vision of Equal Rights in Historic Palestine​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What Does Palestinian Liberation Mean? Ghada Karmi on a Vision of Equal Rights in Historic Palestine​


THANK YOU. !! She actually said that Israel should be destroyed. For THAT reason alone” Right of Return is DOA  👍


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> THANK YOU. !! She actually said that Israel should be destroyed. For THAT reason alone” Right of Return is DOA  👍


Notice she didn’t say how the Israelis would be  “included “ or their place in this new “ state “


----------



## P F Tinmore

#PalestineRamadanRadio2022SM | Haidar Eid provides us with an update from Gaza.​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore


P F Tinmore said:


> What is ZIONISM? Palestinians Explain. | Ghada Karmi & Huda Ammori​



The speaker avoided the topic of what would happen to the Israelis or how the Jews would be treated if they were forced to live under their Authority so I wondered why she was so evasive. The above is the reason.  
Her " FINAL SOLUTION" is DOA


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> THANK YOU. !! She actually said that Israel should be destroyed. For THAT reason alone” Right of Return is DOA  👍


THANK YOU ☺️ When you get a chance look at my post I believe it’s 3622 . I guarantee there will be NO response 
🇮🇱✡️


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Notice she didn’t say how the Israelis would be  “included “ or their place in this new “ state “


She did.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> She did.



Please give us the Specifics of what she said as opposed to just generally referring to it.  No comment on the above??  Not surprised


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem: Nadia Hijab​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Please give us the Specifics of what she said as opposed to just generally referring to it.  No comment on the above??  Not surprised


Notice Tinmore can’t comment on how she suggested the Jewish People should be “ accommodated?”  That’s because she didn’t He also approves of my You Tube Video where the Pals admitted they will not tolerate Israelis living on their land and refuse to live in peace ☮️ with them 
The “ Two State “ and especially the “ One State Solution “ is DOA 👍🇮🇱


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

ISRAEL: ONE STATE SOLUTION MEETING AT SOAS, London, September 2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Salma Karmi-Ayyoub on 'Deal or Disaster of the Century' at Palestine Expo 2019​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sit Down Interview with Dima Khalidi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sit Down Interview with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill​


----------



## P F Tinmore

“Our Vision for Liberation.” A talk with Ilan Pappé and Ramzy Baroud.​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Sit Down Interview with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill​


Opinion | Marc Lamont Hill’s Jewish Problems Didn’t Start With Bashing Israel

This is the reason Tinmore loves and respects Dr. Marc Lamont Hill


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sumaya Awad: For a Free Palestine - U.S. Solidarity Required​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian-American Activist: Fighting, Resistance Are Beautiful and Should Be Celebrated​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

A Talk with Malak Mattar, Palestinian Artist | University of Agriculture, Faisalabad​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Sumaya Awad: For a Free Palestine - U.S. Solidarity Required​





P F Tinmore said:


>


🥱 YAWN


----------



## P F Tinmore

Intellectual no-fly zone w/ Mnar Adley​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Global Empire - Eyal Weizman: Excavating Israel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 79 - The keys are yours now​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Masks Off": Responding to the Israeli Elections - Yousef Munayyer​


----------



## P F Tinmore

More on that stupid IHRA bullshit.

The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: "The Wrong Answers to the Wrong Set of Questions"​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> More on that stupid IHRA bullshit.
> 
> The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: "The Wrong Answers to the Wrong Set of Questions"​


Tinmore doesn't know the definition of Antisemitism and has convinced himself that those who claim so object to the valid criticism of the Jewish State. Let's " help" him

ttps://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"
To the best of my knowledge, this was before 1948

5 of Kanye West’s Antisemitic Remarks, Explained

Just recently; Don't think his declaring WAR on the Jewish people or praising Hitler was about ISRAEL
He also joked about Jews being burned in the ovens, comparing them to baking cookies in the oven.  Somehow, don't think the JEWISH STATE was on his mind

Pittsburgh synagogue gunman said he wanted all Jews to die, criminal complaint says









						anti-Semitism - Anti-Semitism in medieval Europe
					

Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the...



					www.britannica.com
				





All the above are just a FEW of the Hundreds of Examples. Didn't even go into the hate and Violence that existed for centuries all throughout Europe


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Tinmore doesn't know the definition of Antisemitism and has convinced himself that those who claim so object to the valid criticism of the Jewish State. Let's " help" him
> 
> ttps://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
> 
> Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"
> To the best of my knowledge, this was before 1948
> 
> 5 of Kanye West’s Antisemitic Remarks, Explained
> 
> Just recently; Don't think his declaring WAR on the Jewish people or praising Hitler was about ISRAEL
> He also joked about Jews being burned in the ovens, comparing them to baking cookies in the oven.  Somehow, don't think the JEWISH STATE was on his mind
> 
> Pittsburgh synagogue gunman said he wanted all Jews to die, criminal complaint says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anti-Semitism - Anti-Semitism in medieval Europe
> 
> 
> Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the above are just a FEW of the Hundreds of Examples. Didn't even go into the hate and Violence that existed for centuries all throughout Europe


What does any of that have to do with the Nakba?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What does any of that have to do with the Nakba?


Translation; Israel 🇮🇱 doesn’t have the Right to Exist . You see nothing wrong with Jews living under the authority of the Palestinians 
2) You CLAIM that ANTISEMITISM doesn’t exist and never did . Why can’t you just admit you’re a liar 🤥


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Tinmore doesn't know the definition of Antisemitism and has convinced himself that those who claim so object to the valid criticism of the Jewish State. Let's " help" him
> 
> ttps://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
> 
> Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"
> To the best of my knowledge, this was before 1948
> 
> 5 of Kanye West’s Antisemitic Remarks, Explained
> 
> Just recently; Don't think his declaring WAR on the Jewish people or praising Hitler was about ISRAEL
> He also joked about Jews being burned in the ovens, comparing them to baking cookies in the oven.  Somehow, don't think the JEWISH STATE was on his mind
> 
> Pittsburgh synagogue gunman said he wanted all Jews to die, criminal complaint says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anti-Semitism - Anti-Semitism in medieval Europe
> 
> 
> Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the above are just a FEW of the Hundreds of Examples. Didn't even go into the hate and Violence that existed for centuries all throughout Europe











						Defining Antisemitism - United States Department of State
					

The Department of State has used a working definition, along with examples, of antisemitism since 2010. On May 26, 2016, the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), of which the United States is a member, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of...




					www.state.gov
				




I have posted many videos by Palestinians. Where do any of them fit the IHRA bullshit?

Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Translation; Israel 🇮🇱 doesn’t have the Right to Exist . You see nothing wrong with Jews living under the authority of the Palestinians
> 2) You CLAIM that ANTISEMITISM doesn’t exist and never did . Why can’t you just admit you’re a liar 🤥





ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Translation; Israel 🇮🇱 doesn’t have the Right to Exist .


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.  Where does Israel get the "right to exist" in Palestine?

The Palestinians, and many others, call Israel "48" as in 1948 occupied Palestine. I have seen nothing to prove that to be false.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Defining Antisemitism - United States Department of State
> 
> 
> The Department of State has used a working definition, along with examples, of antisemitism since 2010. On May 26, 2016, the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), of which the United States is a member, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.state.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted many videos by Palestinians. Where do any of them fit the IHRA bullshit?
> 
> Links?



Do you belittle racism against other minorities?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.  Where does Israel get the "right to exist" in Palestine?
> 
> The Palestinians, and many others, call Israel "48" as in 1948 occupied Palestine. I have seen nothing to prove that to be false.


Maybe you should go to the U. N . To complain 😂 I’m glad they are calling it “ occupied Palestine “ Just gives the Israeli even more ammunition to prove they are not for the “ two State Solution “ but the destruction of Israel  Don’t like the fact that they have total access to their Holy Sites ? Who Cares??


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Defining Antisemitism - United States Department of State
> 
> 
> The Department of State has used a working definition, along with examples, of antisemitism since 2010. On May 26, 2016, the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), of which the United States is a member, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.state.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted many videos by Palestinians. Where do any of them fit the IHRA bullshit?
> 
> Links?


The above is Bullshit ? THX ! You have proven my point.  🇺🇸✡️


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Maybe you should go to the U. N . To complain 😂 I’m glad they are calling it “ occupied Palestine “ Just gives the Israeli even more ammunition to prove they are not for the “ two State Solution “ but the destruction of Israel  Don’t like the fact that they have total access to their Holy Sites ? Who Cares??


Is deflection all you got?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Is deflection all you got?


Not deflection . You’re always spouting about the U. N. and “ International Law “ now all of a sudden you don’t like it? 
The fact that Jews are now FREE to go to their HOLY SITES is “ deflection?” 
I also notice you have no objection to Kanya West praising HITLER and comparing Jews being burned in Ovens to making Cookies in ovens doesn’t bother you 
You have always claimed there is no such thing as Antisemitism and I called you on it. YOU are the one who’s deflecting and a LIAR 🤥


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Not deflection . You’re always spouting about the U. N. and “ International Law “ now all of a sudden you don’t like it?
> The fact that Jews are now FREE to go to their HOLY SITES is “ deflection?”
> I also notice you have no objection to Kanya West praising HITLER and comparing Jews being burned in Ovens to making Cookies in ovens doesn’t bother you
> You have always claimed there is no such thing as Antisemitism and I called you on it. YOU are the one who’s deflecting and a LIAR 🤥


You sure can make stuff up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ash Sarkar sat down with Karma Nabulsi (Fellow in Politics at St Edmund Hall, and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford)


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> You sure can make stuff up.


So do you. How many times have you claimed AntiSemitism does NOT exist; the Jews use it only as a EXCUSE when Israel is criticized??
You’re a


P F Tinmore said:


> You sure can make stuff up.


You sure can lie and deny you never said Antisemitism was just a “ excuse “ the Zionists use


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish establishment is failing at fighting antisemitism | Caroline Glick Show #kanyewest #trump​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Jewish establishment is failing at fighting antisemitism | Caroline Glick Show #kanyewest #trump​


This is Hysterical ! There has been antisemitism for over 2000 years BEFORE the JEWISH STATE was established. 🇮🇱✡️


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> This is Hysterical ! There has been antisemitism for over 2000 years BEFORE the JEWISH STATE was established. 🇮🇱✡️


Indeed, what is it like to be hated every place you go?


----------



## P F Tinmore

J Street's Work Matters Now More Than Ever | J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami at #JStreet22​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mr. clueless. What a doofus.  

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Israelis, Palestinians and the Path Forward | #JStreet22​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, what is it like to be hated every place you go?



Believe it or not; I actually appreciate the above.   " Christians" were taught that the Jews killed their " Savior" which initially brought on the hate that has been festering for over 2000 years  Whenever I have asked a " Christian" didn't G-D send his only son down to die for our sins there is no response. That's just for starters.
You have proven once more that the Antisemitism has NOTHING to do with Israel and I actually thank you for that .  I couldn't have done a better job myself


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Believe it or not; I actually appreciate the above.   " Christians" were taught that the Jews killed their " Savior" which initially brought on the hate that has been festering for over 2000 years  Whenever I have asked a " Christian" didn't G-D send his only son down to die for our sins there is no response. That's just for starters.
> You have proven once more that the Antisemitism has NOTHING to do with Israel and I actually thank you for that .  I couldn't have done a better job myself





ILOVEISRAEL said:


> I have asked a " Christian" didn't G-D send his only son down to die for our sins there is no response.


Indeed, Jesus had to die to fulfill prophesy. How could anyone be pissed about that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Believe it or not; I actually appreciate the above.   " Christians" were taught that the Jews killed their " Savior" which initially brought on the hate that has been festering for over 2000 years  Whenever I have asked a " Christian" didn't G-D send his only son down to die for our sins there is no response. That's just for starters.
> You have proven once more that the Antisemitism has NOTHING to do with Israel and I actually thank you for that .  I couldn't have done a better job myself





ILOVEISRAEL said:


> That's just for starters.
> You have proven once more that the Antisemitism has NOTHING to do with Israel


Not really. Most of those fake antsemitism reports are criticisms of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Biden's Failing Israel Policy​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Most of those fake antsemitism reports are criticisms of Israel.


FBI and Police do not report criticism of Israel,
rather violent crimes and incitement.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Jesus had to die to fulfill prophesy. How could anyone be pissed about that?



What prophecy?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Most of those fake antsemitism reports are criticisms of Israel





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Jesus had to die to fulfill prophesy. How could anyone be pissed about that?





rylah said:


> What prophecy?


There isn’t any. He’s a  liar Notice he has no comment about  over two thousand years of killings, the Pograms , violence, being thrown out of their birth Countries , etc  because the Jews killed their “ Savior?” My Grandmother had to change her last name to get a job BEFORE WW 11 . My Grandfather was told to his face he wasn’t getting a promotion because he ‘s a HYMIE . Only a few examples  NOTHING to do with Israel 🇮🇱✡️


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Most of those fake antsemitism reports are criticisms of Israel.


Tinmore can't help but lie. It's in his blood



			Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"
		










						anti-Semitism - Anti-Semitism in medieval Europe
					

Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Most of those fake antsemitism reports are criticisms of Israel.



As usual, he lies









						anti-Semitism - Anti-Semitism in medieval Europe
					

Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the...



					www.britannica.com
				













						Kanye West’s Antisemitic, Troubling Behavior—Here’s Everything He’s Said In Recent Weeks
					

From Tucker Carlson to Candace Owens, West has made the rounds of the right wing spouting conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and T-shirts proclaiming “White Lives Matter.”




					www.forbes.com
				





Pittsburgh synagogue gunman said he wanted all Jews to die, criminal complaint says | CNN


Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"

The above just for starters 

Somehow he actually managed to talk it into himself that it's ALL about Israel .  Didn't realize until now that the JEWISH STATE was founded before the HOLOCAUST


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Recently Tinmore seemed " concerned"" with stopping " Black Antisemitism" I didn't know what the difference was between " black" or "' white" Antisemitism plus according to him it never existed; it's ALL about Israel.  I decided to Google it and this is what I came up with; 

Black Antisemitism Is Not Inherently “Left-Wing”

Somehow I don't believe Tinmore would care about stopping any Antisemitism . If anything; he would encourage it


----------



## P F Tinmore

Interview with Mazin Qumsiyeh,  Palestine Museum of Natural History.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Recently Tinmore seemed " concerned"" with stopping " Black Antisemitism" I didn't know what the difference was between " black" or "' white" Antisemitism plus according to him it never existed; it's ALL about Israel.  I decided to Google it and this is what I came up with;
> 
> Black Antisemitism Is Not Inherently “Left-Wing”
> 
> Somehow I don't believe Tinmore would care about stopping any Antisemitism . If anything; he would encourage it


I don't know much about Antisemitism.

I don't travel in those circles.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't know much about Antisemitism.
> 
> I don't travel in those circles.


That’s right. According to you there is no such thing; it’s ALL about Israel . Keep telling yourself that. It makes you feel better 😽


----------



## P F Tinmore

Reporting on Palestine and Israel: Mainstream Media, Online Media, and Citizen Journalists​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Miko Peled Seattle. Oct. 1, 2012​


----------



## P F Tinmore

'OF COURSE Israel Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians!' - Israeli Anthropologist Corrects Debra Messing​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Michael Brooks&Jeff Halper: Decolonizing Israel Liberating Palestine The Need For 1 Democratic State​


----------



## P F Tinmore

We Wrote in Symbols: Reclaiming, Restoring, and Representing Arab Women Narratives​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections, Episode 7: Palestine at the Crossroads with Hanan Ashrawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Connections, Episode 8:  Europe and the Arab-Israeli Conflict​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Matters: Personal Stories from Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Social Work, Abolition, and Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Building Palestine Solidarity after the Bowman Affair​


----------



## P F Tinmore

What the Jewish Left Learned From Occupy​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Twenty Years After 9/11: Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Twitter-Restricted Palestine-Based Journalist Debunks One of Israel's Biggest Lies​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Cease Fire? With Norm Finkelstein & Jim Zogby​


----------



## P F Tinmore

“Everyone is inciting against us!”-  Israeli mobs attack Palestinians across the country​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Katie Halper & Rania Khalek: STOP Conflating Anti-Zionism with Antisemitism​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Communication of Ideas
※→ P F TINEMORE, et al,

In general, I see no real value in the overall contribution of this thread (_*Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews*_).  This thread generally turns out to be a platform for those who, in one way or another, perpetuate confusion about the issues.  And it leans heavily toward the side opposed to the establishment of the Jewish State. [*As if the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)*] and the Allied Powers at the end of WWII were wrong in encouraging the establishment.

*REMEMBER:* ​​_More than 900 Jews, aboard the MS St Louis passenger liner, were denied entry into several countries Including America, in their attempt to flee Germany after Hitler took over.  They were sent back to Germany.  This is but one example of Jews having no safe harbor to escape from the persecution leading up to the Holocaust._​A Ship of Jewish Refugees Was Refused US Landing in 1939 ... - HISTORY​As the *M.S*. *St*. *Louis* cruised off the coast of Miami in June *1939*, its passengers could see the lights of the city glimmering. But the United States hadn't been on the ship's original...​
And today, in this immediate timeline, the world is questing the propriety of establishing a Jewish National Home (*safe harbor*), as if the immediate adjacent countries to Israel are Jewish Friendly...  Even the UNSCOP in A/RES/181(II) Part II (Boundaries) Paragraph "B" (*The Jewish State*).


P F Tinmore said:


> Katie Halper & Rania Khalek: STOP Conflating Anti-Zionism with Antisemitism   ​


*(COMMENT)*

The original "tacit" approval by the Allied Powers, at the conclusion of the Holocaust, was to ensure that future generations of Jewish People have a safe harbor in which to retreat.  

The very first sentence in the Islamic Resistance Movement  General Principles is:

 "The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement."​
Contributions like that presented by Halper and Khalek are (*either intentionally or unintentionally*) using language that is ambiguous to most people, not in the population of Jews (*practicing*) or Muslims (*Islamic followers*).  And that is not to say that all Jews and Muslims understand the subtle differences in the meaning of "Apartheid" • "Zionism" • "AntiSemitism" •  "Anti Jewish" • etc.  When I ask, what populations are affected in these discussions, I get garbled answers back.  When we talk about "Apartheid" (*just as an example*) are we talking about Arab-Israelis?  Or are we talking about Arab Palestinians outside the sovereign borders of Israel?

In many of these discussions • "the intent in the content being delivered (*what you say*)  is much less important if the content is misunderstood (*what other people think you said*)."  This directly affects what the receiver (*your audience*) captures (takes away) from the discussion.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> More than 900 Jews, aboard the MS St Louis passenger liner, were denied entry into several countries Including America,


What does that have to do with the Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Contributions like that presented by Halper and Khalek are (*either intentionally or unintentionally*) using language that is ambiguous to most people, not in the population of Jews (*practicing*) or Muslims (*Islamic followers*).


This discussion was with four Jews (one of them a Rabbi) and one secular Muslim.

So, what is ambiguous?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In general, I see no real value in the overall contribution of this thread (_*Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews*_).


I post a wide variety of people/religions/sources/countries. Anyone can discuss the issues and post what they want.

This thread is to go beyond mere talking points.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Communication Value
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I agree.  Anyone may post (nearly) anything.  Just as some would use it to advocate racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.  And again, some may exploit the platform to further propaganda for "armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people."



P F Tinmore said:


> What does that have to do with the Palestinians?





P F Tinmore said:


> This discussion was with four Jews (one of them a Rabbi) and one secular Muslim.
> 
> So, what is ambiguous?





P F Tinmore said:


> I post a wide variety of people/religions/sources/countries. Anyone can discuss the issues and post what they want.
> 
> This thread is to go beyond mere talking points.


*(COMMENT)*

The ambiguity of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) 'vs' Israeli is lost on the HoAP.  When the HoAP talks about Human Rights (HR) they are NOT talking about Civil and Political Rights as expressed in the core HR instruments.  When the HoAP talks about Apartheid, they are not talking about inhumane acts • or • oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group as defined by the Rome Statutes.  When the HoAP talks about Palestine, they do not distinguish Palestine, from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean • or that of • Palestine → the territory formerly under Jordanian sovereignty known as the West Bank (what remains under the control of the Palestinians).  The Gaza Strip was abandoned when Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005.





 Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Rashid Khalidi Interview | Oxford Political Review​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Lobby EXPOSED By Smeared Rapper Lowkey​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Global Empire - The Israeli State and its Rogue Allies​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lara Kiswani Palestinian American Activist Calling for Justice for Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

US Response to Israel -Palestine conflict​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sacco and Vanzetti Award to SURVIVORS Of The USAs WAR ON TERROR: The Holy Land Found & Sami Al-Arian​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 10 - Decolonizing Native America & Palestine with Dr. Steve Salaita​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 80 - Unintentional Sniper​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 77 - Using your platform with Abby Martin​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 68 - What would you do for freedom?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

‘Fantasy Israel’ Faces Moment of Truth
					

The definition of Israel as an Apartheid State by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is a maturation of a long process of framing and reframing the Palestine issue.




					english.palinfo.com
				



The definition of Israel as an Apartheid State by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is a maturation of a long process of framing and reframing the Palestine issue. The process was both political and academic. It began with a group of Palestinian scholars who formed, in 1965, the PLO Research Center in Beirut, and among them, academics such as Fayez Sayigh and Ibrahim Abu Lughod introduced the application of the settler-colonial paradigm to the Palestine case.

  Read more at  
‘Fantasy Israel’ Faces Moment of Truth
 @Copyright The Palestinian Information Center


----------



## P F Tinmore

Andrew Yang's OTHER Awful Israel Statements​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Springtime for Fascists In Israel: Far Right & Theocrats Take Power, w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Debbie Wasserman Schultz & The Power Of AIPAC​


----------



## P F Tinmore

BREAKING: J Street Says Two-State Solution No Longer Viable For Israel & Palestine​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
SUBTOPIC: Palestinians Honoring Another Terrorist
⁜→. P F Tinmore, MartyNYC, et al,

What is the viable alternative?



P F Tinmore said:


> BREAKING: J Street Says Two-State Solution No Longer Viable For Israel & Palestine   ​


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the as. MartyNYC has pointed out:  "We do not want to live under “Palestinian” rule!" is a common theme in Israel.

Many do not see any possibility other than the _status quo._






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What does that have to do with the Palestinians?


According to you.; there is no such thing as Antisemitism, remember? The Israelis just use it as an “ excuse”


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
> SUBTOPIC: Palestinians Honoring Another Terrorist
> ⁜→. P F Tinmore, MartyNYC, et al,
> 
> What is the viable alternative?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the as. MartyNYC has pointed out:  "We do not want to live under “Palestinian” rule!" is a common theme in Israel.
> 
> Many do not see any possibility other than the _status quo._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


It is already one state. Will it be democratic or apartheid?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> According to you.; there is no such thing as Antisemitism, remember? The Israelis just use it as an “ excuse”


There is Antisemitism, but when you throw out Antisemitism, cards like rice at a wedding, it loses its meaning.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> It is already one state. Will it be democratic or apartheid?


The “ One State Solution “ a “ Democracy?”Others having COMPLETE control over  Jewish Religious Sites?  It honestly bothers you that it will never be that way again


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> It is already one state. Will it be democratic or apartheid?



This is the BEST reason why there will NEVER be a " democratic" One State Solution .  They have made it very clear the Israelis will be subservient having their " rights" dictated enforced by them INCLUDING a possible Civil War


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
SUBTOPIC: The Lack of a Solution
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> It is already one state. Will it be democratic or apartheid?


*(COMMENT)*

This idea that - "it is already one state" is simply wishful thinking,  It is repetitive propaganda, and an unfounded cause for the disenfranchised Arab Palestinians (*West Bank/Gaza Strip*) to rally around to release their hostilities (_*as if this was some form of patriotism*_).  It is one of a handful of mantras and themes the Arab Palestinians use as a justification for the violation of Human, Civil, and Political Rights:

◈  Article 20  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​​2. Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​◈  19 November 2007  International Counter-Terrorism Conference​An international counter-terrorism conference in Tunis co-sponsored by the United Nations has wrapped up with participants stressing that no motive can ever justify acts of terrorism and that Islam should not be blamed for the phenomenon.​​◈  Article 68 Fourth Geneva Convention​​Protected persons (Arab Palestinians) who commit offenses that are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israelis), or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or imprisonment.​​The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power (Israel) in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person (Arab Palestinians) in cases of espionage, sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.​
One of the important components to the allegation of "Apartheid" is the understanding of what Apartheid and its application.  It is all about what it is, and NOT just what the protected person (Arab Palestinians) would like it to be and include.

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;​​✦  The first part of the context is → one racial group over any other racial group.​​Question:  What are the "racial groups" involved?​​✦  The second part of the context is → intention of maintaining that regime.​​Question:  What regime has been maintained?​Question:  How long have they been maintained?​
Roscoe Pound cataloged four meanings for the word _law. _They are:

1. the legal order, *that is, the regime* that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of politically organized society, or through social pressure, backed by force, in such a society <respect for law>;
Dictionary of Modem Legal Usage, Copyright © 1987,1996 by Bryan A. Gamer, Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., pp503







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This idea that - "it is already one state" is simply wishful thinking,


Not really. There is one government, one currency, one army, one water system, one border...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred


False premise. It is not about national, racial, or religious hatred. It is about settler colonialism, apartheid, and occupation hatred.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;


Indeed.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed.


The " One State Solution" is a fantasy.  Deal with it


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
SUBTOPIC: The Lack of a Solution
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are correct*!*  You cannot answer the questions either.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed.



Question: What are the "racial groups" involved?
Question: What regime has been maintained?
and
How long have they (the _*oppressive regimes*_) been maintained
by occupying actual "Palestinian" Territory?​
The Palestinians cannot answer the questions because the allegations are bogus.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
> SUBTOPIC: The Lack of a Solution
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are correct*!*  You cannot answer the questions either.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What are the "racial groups" involved?
> Question: What regime has been maintained?
> and
> How long have they (the _*oppressive regimes*_) been maintained
> by occupying actual "Palestinian" Territory?​
> The Palestinians cannot answer the questions because the allegations are bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


That is because they are dumb questions. You should know this stuff already.

Racial discrimination is not merely determined by color. It is based on inherited identities. Being a Jew is an inherited identity. Being a Palestinian is an inherited identity.

Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory since the Nakba.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> That is because they are dumb questions. You should know this stuff already.
> 
> Racial discrimination is not merely determined by color. It is based on inherited identities. Being a Jew is an inherited identity. Being a Palestinian is an inherited identity.
> 
> Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory since the Nakba.


Nothing is going to change; Israel Will continues to exist . The Palestinians have made it very clear not only do they NOT want a “ Two State Solution “ but they wouldn’t even tollerate a “ democratic “ One State Solution They make the BEST argument for maintaining the status quo . 🇮🇱✡️


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ep. 81 - Free the HLF5 with Nida and Zaira Abu Baker​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That is because they are dumb questions. You should know this stuff already.
> 
> Racial discrimination is not merely determined by color. It is based on inherited identities. Being a Jew is an inherited identity. Being a Palestinian is an inherited identity.
> 
> Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory since the Nakba.



RoccoR is correct, if it's not racial discrimination
then apartheid doesn't apply, and your framing
is a cynical exploitation of the African cause.

On the other hand, are Africans even
allowed representation in either of
the Pal-Arab governments?

Linda Sarsour rallying "civil rights" in blackface


----------



## P F Tinmore

URGENT: GAZA Massacre Live Panel​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Lobby Pressures Spotify To Remove Pro-Palestinian Rapper Lowkey​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel Lobby Pressures Spotify To Remove Pro-Palestinian Rapper Lowkey​



Spotify doesn't censor other skinheads?


----------



## P F Tinmore

This Palestinian village doesn't exist | AJ+​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
SUBTOPIC: The Lack of a Solution
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
.
This is NOT news.  It is a rehash of a rehash.
.


P F Tinmore said:


> URGENT: GAZA Massacre Live Panel   ​


*(COMMENT)*
.
This does not contribute anything new to the discussion.  This video itself is more than a year old.  And it discusses a non-existent "Massacre." 

There is a huge difference between casualties caused by an unprovoked military assault intentionally directed against unarmed civilians - and - casualties from the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) using unarmed civilians to shield HoAP attacks.
.




 Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Palestine: the things you don’t hear about.
> SUBTOPIC: The Lack of a Solution
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> .
> This is NOT news.  It is a rehash of a rehash.
> .
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> This does not contribute anything new to the discussion.  This video itself is more than a year old.  And it discusses a non-existent "Massacre."
> 
> There is a huge difference between casualties caused by an unprovoked military assault intentionally directed against unarmed civilians - and - casualties from the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) using unarmed civilians to shield HoAP attacks.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Ahhh, the old human shield trope.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peter Beinart, Rabbi Jill Jacobs and Yousef Munayyer on Zionism & The Left​


----------



## P F Tinmore

35th Annual Brown-Lyons Lecture, featuring Peter Beinart​


----------



## P F Tinmore

L'Chayim: Columnist Peter Beinart​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Conflating Human Rights Advocacy with Terrorism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

CPSA meets with Rehab Nazzal​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Talking about food.

Mazin Qumsiyeh - Sustainability in Developing Countries, Palestine as an Example​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Indigenous Wisdom Can Help Us Design An Autonomous Future of Food​


----------



## P F Tinmore

There’s immorality in Christian-Zionist project of seeking legitimacy for Israel: Illan Pappe​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Linda Sarsour: Justice for Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Norm Finkelstein, Son Of Holocaust Survivors, Compares Gaza To Warsaw Ghetto​


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Norm Finkelstein, Son Of Holocaust Survivors, Compares Gaza To Warsaw Ghetto​



Warsaw Ghetto - Wikipedia

Too bad it isn't comparable to the Warsaw Ghetto


----------



## P F Tinmore

Youth, Diaspora and resistance with Olympian Hanna Barakat and Ahed Tamimi.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Exile with Rafeef Ziadah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Masks Off": Responding to the Israeli Elections - Dr. Maha Nassar​


----------



## P F Tinmore

UNBOUGHT POWER HOUR | Season 2 Episode 4 with Sumaya Awad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine: Democracy Under Occupation? with Ramzy Baroud, Nadia Naser-Najjab and Samah Sabawi​


----------



## P F Tinmore

BBC & CNN Bias EXPOSED On Israel and Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The ethics of liberation: MEMO in conversation with Randa Abdel-Fattah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Susan Abulhawa   What's at Stake   07 13 2022​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine in 2022, with Ali Abunimah (part 1) | EI Podcast​

Palestine in 2022, with Ali Abunimah (part 2) | EI Podcast​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians Have Tried Surrender & Collaboration. Only Resistance Is Left w/ Ali Abunimah​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ali Abunimah Max Blumenthal The Lobby – USA​

Ali Abunimah Max Blumenthal The Lobby – USA Part 2​


----------



## P F Tinmore

A conversation with Nadine El-Enany & Ilan Pappé - #elEnanyPappe2021​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Beinart Gets A Little Too Real For CNN​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Peter Beinart with Dylan Saba & Ethan Katz on the Controversy About Zionist Speakers at Berkeley Law​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Unveiling the Chilly Climate – The Suppression of Speech on Palestine in Canada (& Beyond)​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RIGHT of RETURN,Susan Akram Pt 3​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kumi Now Online - Week 50 - Right of Return​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Justice for Palestine - Stop Annexation and Occupation Now​


----------



## P F Tinmore

I don't prescribe to that IHRA shit.​​Resisting the IHRA Definition | Website Launch​​​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Session One - Settler Colonialism: Palestine and South Africa​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Webinar: Resisting Israeli Land Grabs​


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Right of Return and the Struggle for Justice​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Defend Masafer Yatta - Instagram Live!​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Talk World Radio: Ilan Pappe on the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine​


----------



## P F Tinmore

One Democratic State - Dr.Leila Farsakh, and Dr. Jeff Halper​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Food, farming and the freedom in Palestine-Laila El-Haddad​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jeff Halper   Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine   Pluto Live​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Biblical myths used to justify conquest of Palestine belong in dustbin of history
					

Zionist claims regards the colonisation of Palestine have been comprehensively debunked, but they are still deployed to convince Christians and liberals




					www.middleeasteye.net


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Biblical myths used to justify conquest of Palestine belong in dustbin of history
> 
> 
> Zionist claims regards the colonisation of Palestine have been comprehensively debunked, but they are still deployed to convince Christians and liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.middleeasteye.net



Apparently not, because there's a purpose to that.

But the dustbin of history is full of
greatest empires and enemies
Israel witnessed falling.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israeli Raids on Palestinian Civil Society Organizations — The Costs of International Inaction​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How One Woman Is Using Comedy to Speak Up About Palestinian Rights | The New Yorker Documentary​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Finkelstein GS '87 confronts IDF veteran after panel discussion​


----------

