# The debates



## P F Tinmore

Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates. There are some short one on ones in news shows where there is only time to throw around the standard talking points. Here is one that is more comprehensive with 4 Jews and 2 Palestinians. Hopefully there will be more.

*What we talk about when we talk about Israel/Palestine *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Riz Khan -Palestinian - Israeli debate -12 May 08*

********


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Dialogues: Is Israel an apartheid state?*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.



Only it isn't a major conflict.  

There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss. 

However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict. 

Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict. 

I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Click to expand...

What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Doha Debates on the Right of Return for Palestinians *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Richard Goldstone and Dore Gold discuss the U.N. Gaza Report at Brandeis *

**


----------



## Lipush

What exactly is your definition of debate<?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MJB12741

Debates are great.  They accomplish nothing keeping Israel strong & in control.


----------



## ProudVeteran76

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
Click to expand...



Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA


----------



## P F Tinmore

ProudVeteran76 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
Click to expand...

They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.


----------



## ProudVeteran76

P F Tinmore said:


> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
Click to expand...



Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"


----------



## P F Tinmore

ProudVeteran76 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
Click to expand...

They never were borders.

What law are you talking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*DEBATE: How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict: 0, 1 , or 2 State Solution? *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DEBATE: How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict: 0, 1 , or 2 State Solution? *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody gives a fuck about your revisionist history lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "Typical Tinmore". His responses in threads amount to cutting and pasting silky YouTube videos.
> 
> This thread is the ultimate absurdity. With his arguments being YouTube videos, he's cutting and pasting YouTube videos which are debating other YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Susan Abulhawa v/s Alan Dershowitz*

******


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel is a Rogue State debate - The Cambridge Union Society *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Avraham Burg, Dennis Prager, Joe Klein - US/Israel Relations Debate 2012 *

Syndicated radio host Dennis Prager and former Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg debate US/Israel relations. Political columnist Joe Klein moderates.

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Parting the Sea: Are Israel and the Diaspora Drifting Apart? *

Is there really a widening gulf between diaspora Jewry and Israel, or is the hype overblown?

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel and Palestine: Peace or Perpetual Conflict? *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Debate: Attacking Iran, Israel-Palestine & Obama with Rashid Khalidi & Jonathan Tobin*

**
**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel's Newest Critics: North American Jews *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*MIT/Harvard Gaza Symposium - Day 1*

**


----------



## rylah

Tinmore explain to me what is a * "debate"*?

Because if You present only people who agree with You - it's not a debate. 
Merely a SAFE SPACE, where one can run to from opposing views.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Tinmore explain to me what is a * "debate"*?
> 
> Because if You present only people who agree with You - it's not a debate.
> Merely a SAFE SPACE, where one can run to from opposing views.


You can post any debate you like.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Future of Israel and Palestine: Expanding the Debate*

**


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
Click to expand...



There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*BBC 1 Debate 2017: Should we trade with Israel now settlements are recognised? (The Big Questions)*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine and antisemitism.


----------



## Ventura77

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
Click to expand...




This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Ventura77 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
Click to expand...



Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's still a trouble spot.)


----------



## Coyote

*Please discuss the topic which appears to be about debates but it is a bit fuzzy. P F Tinmore  can you elaborate on what sort of discussion you expect?*


----------



## RoccoR

RE  The debates
※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,

ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the 
Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.

You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.



ForeverYoung436 said:


> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

1. Syria & Iraq
2. Turkey
3. Yemen
4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
5. Democratic Republic of Congo
6. South Sudan
7. Afghanistan
8. Myanmar
9. Ukraine
10. Mexico​
Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> *Please discuss the topic which appears to be about debates but it is a bit fuzzy. P F Tinmore  can you elaborate on what sort of discussion you expect?*


Good question. I think of the board as a place of information and discussing that information.

Debates and panel discussions bring issues to light that go beyond the soundbite world.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Achieving a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine*

A debate between Peter Beinart and Yousef Munayyer

**


----------



## ForeverYoung436

RoccoR said:


> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?


----------



## Ventura77

ForeverYoung436 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
Click to expand...




No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone


*The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*

*Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.

But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.


The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...
*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

ForeverYoung436 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
Click to expand...


Well, let me put it this way.  The reason those 10 conflicts are not in the news, is because Jews are not involved in them.  But in Mexico's case, even though Jews are not involved, its proximity to us would still demand a place in the news.

(BTW, I am very surprised that North Korea has been very much in the news lately, since very few Jews, if at all, live there.)


----------



## Ventura77

ForeverYoung436 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me put it this way.  The reason those 10 conflicts are not in the news, is because Jews are not involved in them.  But in Mexico's case, even though Jews are not involved, its proximity to us would still demand a place in the news.
> 
> (BTW, I am very surprised that North Korea has been very much in the news lately, since very few Jews, if at all, live there.)
Click to expand...




I can only lament your pathetic ignorance and prevailing sense of delusion...the scathing irony is that American mainstream media is heavily biased in favor of Israel, literally channeling public statements and lies directly from the Israeli government, and yet still you whiny little pukes howl 'JEWS...JEWS!' Contrast European news with the slop that passes for reporting in America...French, German, Italian and British news services actually dare to report the facts about Israel...


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Ventura77 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a civil war raging in the Congo for decades.  Ppl there cut out each others' hearts and eat them.  I remember once you said that the Palestinian "occupation" is the only one in the world, when there are Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.  In general, ppl are obsessed with the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
Click to expand...


 I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
Click to expand...




ForeverYoung436 said:


> The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.


Of course that is not true. Many Palestinians and their supporters regularly work in the Middle East and Latin America.


----------



## Ventura77

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nonsense is one of the central pillars of Hasbara, yet all one need do is examine briefly the conditions and proposed 'occupation' parallels of any of these inapplicable examples to look for comparisons to Israel's criminal occupation: So far as I'm aware none of these examples entail shelling captive civilians and targeting children, or using illegal settlements to artificially depopulate one side...this illiterate fool even references a "civil-war in the Congo"...the prevailing idea seems to be that Jews cannot be culpable for their crimes because they are Jewish...a far better question might be: why shouldn't we focus on the Israeli occupation to the extent that it is central to an area of critical religious, political and cultural importance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
Click to expand...




Wrong on both counts idiot...not only have I been to Israel, I have very likely forgotten more of the relevant details of the conflict than a mindless blow-parrot like you is likely to learn!  The real question is why are you trying to shift the emphasis to other conflicts on the ( Israel and Palestine ) debate room?  No other global conflict compares in situational and political conditions to the criminal occupation of Historic Palestine...you are obviously an awkwardly ignorant Hasbara-troll...


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Ventura77 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on both counts idiot...not only have I been to Israel, I have very likely forgotten more of the relevant details of the conflict than a mindless blow-parrot like you is likely to learn!  The real question is why are you trying to shift the emphasis to other conflicts on the ( Israel and Palestine ) debate room?  No other global conflict compares in situational and political conditions to the criminal occupation of Historic Palestine...you are obviously an awkwardly ignorant Hasbara-troll...
Click to expand...


I am not shifting anything.  Tinmore asked if there was any other conflict going on in the world (though I must admit that he did qualify that statement by saying a century old).  I simply answered his question.  Before mixing into something, you should at least try to keep up with what's happening in the debate.  And because I'm not insecure like you are, I'm not going to pepper this post with the names "idiot", "blowhard", "ignorant", "fool", etc.  It's pretty sad that you have to do that.


----------



## Ventura77

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on both counts idiot...not only have I been to Israel, I have very likely forgotten more of the relevant details of the conflict than a mindless blow-parrot like you is likely to learn!  The real question is why are you trying to shift the emphasis to other conflicts on the ( Israel and Palestine ) debate room?  No other global conflict compares in situational and political conditions to the criminal occupation of Historic Palestine...you are obviously an awkwardly ignorant Hasbara-troll...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not shifting anything.  Tinmore asked if there was any other conflict going on in the world (though I must admit that he did qualify that statement by saying a century old).  I simply answered his question.  Before mixing into something, you should at least try to keep up with what's happening in the debate.  And because I'm not insecure like you are, I'm not going to pepper this post with the names "idiot", "blowhard", "ignorant", "fool", etc.  It's pretty sad that you have to do that.
Click to expand...




Wrong yet again Goober, have you considered changing your screen-name to ( Forever-Dumb )????  Shifting the emphasis from Israel to other global conflicts is curiously enough one of the main tactics of Hasbara, probably just a coincidence that you peddle it huh?  And my valid use of descriptions like "idiot' or 'fool' has nothing to do with 'insecurity' and everything to do with your profoundly limited knowledge and consequent idiocy...capish asshole?


----------



## RoccoR

RE  The debates
※→  ForeverYoung436,  et al,

This has to do with the overarching question as to why armed groups _(mercenaries, drug cartels, insurgents, jihadists and the basket that contains all the other asymmetric fighters)_ are bound by the IHL of non-international armed conflicts?



ForeverYoung436 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In the expanded parochial views of middle class America, it is simply because Mexico is so close and so familiar with Americans that one can't see the forest for the trees; focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context.  

In the minds of most Americans, we tend to think of "war" in conventional terms.  But that really is not a safe way to view "International Armed Conflict" (IAC) and "Non-International Armed Conflicts" (NIAC).  Somewhere, the understanding became foggy and the difference between war and politics ⇔ combatants and civilians have stepped out of focus.  We call this the evolution of conflict from Conventional to Fourth-generation warfare (4GW); where there is a very heavy asymmetric component.  The Israeli Forces, specifically the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is a force dominated by modern logistical practices, all types of technology, and tactics deception, rapidly deplorable and heavily armed forces using modern means of cover and concealment.  We call this Third Generation Warfare (3GW).  The various Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) are, for the most part, low budget 4GW.  They operate under the auspicious of a Palestinian Political Party as an armed wings, yet never quite under central control.  The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the Military Wing to HAMAS and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades consider themselves the Military Wing of Fatah.

Mexico has many armed groups; some big and some small.  The claim is that many of the Police _(City, State, Federal)_, including Prosecutors and key national level politicians are in the pocket of general criminal enterprises and drug cartels.  


*Business Anti-Corruption Portal*

Corruption is a significant risk for companies operating in Mexico. Bribery is widespread in the country's judiciary and police, and business registration processes, including getting construction permits and licenses, are negatively influenced by corruption. Organized crime continues to be a very problematic factor for business, imposing large costs on companies. Collusion between the police, judges and criminal groups is extensive, leading to widespread crime, theft, impunity and weak law enforcement. The petroleum industry is dominated by the state-owned oil company Pemex, which has been the subject of several high-profile corruption cases. Gifts and hospitality are not forbidden by law and may be permissible, depending on intent. Attempted bribery, extortion, abuse of office, bribery of foreign public officials and facilitation are criminalized under Mexico's Federal Penal Code (Código Penal Federal, in Spanish). However, Mexico's anti-corruption laws are almost never enforced, and public officials are rarely held liable for illegal acts.​
As this grows, it will have some far reaching consequences.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I an illiterate fool for referencing a civil war in the Congo?  Tinmore asked what are other trouble spots in the world, and I answered.  (It's true that he asked about "hundred year old trouble spots", and the civil war in the Congo isn't exactly that old.  But it's sitll a trouble spot.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is not true. Many Palestinians and their supporters regularly work in the Middle East and Latin America.
Click to expand...


How much time did You spend in the middle east?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE  The debates
> ※→  ForeverYoung436, Ventura77, fncceo, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> ForeverYoung436 is not off the mark.  Recently _(January 5, 2017)_ the _Foreign Policy Journal_ published the
> Feature: 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2017; and remarks on each. The "Congo" is #5 to watch.  BUT, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not mentioned among them.
> 
> You have to go to the: *List of ongoing armed conflicts* to see the comparison in magnitude (#13).  Or, as an alternative, the *MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1946-2016* data _(last updated on June 15, 2017)_ to see a different viewpoint.  What is unusual is that the Israel-Palestinian War is listed twice in terms of political violence; the many face concept _(the conflict that started in 1948 / the conflict that started in 1965)_.  But that is a view that this multifaceted in its formation.  While we have, on occasion, bumped into this aspect, most of the discussion group considers it all one dispute.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1. Syria & Iraq
> 2. Turkey
> 3. Yemen
> 4. Greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin
> 5. Democratic Republic of Congo
> 6. South Sudan
> 7. Afghanistan
> 8. Myanmar
> 9. Ukraine
> 10. Mexico​
> Obviously, #*10. Mexico*  is probably the one of the most immediate concern to Americans; in that it is our southern neighbor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is not true. Many Palestinians and their supporters regularly work in the Middle East and Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much time did You spend in the middle east?
Click to expand...

Deflection.

How much time did you spend in Nazi Germany?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard of an armed conflict in Mexico.  Being that it's so close to us, I think i would've heard about it.  Are you talking about the drug trade there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is not true. Many Palestinians and their supporters regularly work in the Middle East and Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much time did You spend in the middle east?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> How much time did you spend in Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...


I asked a straight question, why can't You simply answer?

Both of my family branches fought the fascists and the nazis, both in Europe and in Africa.
Most of the family in Europe on my wife's side perished as a result. 

Your turn:
*
So how much time actually did You spend in the middle east?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ventura77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no 'armed conflict' at all in Mexico...only a mere 20,000 dead last year...LOL  Your ignorance is astonishing... an ideal Zionist drone
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War*
> 
> *Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.*
> 
> *But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.*
> 
> *Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.*
> 
> 
> *The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War | Drug Lord: The ...*
> *https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/.../the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am here to discuss Israel, a place you have never been to and have no knowledge of.  Your ignorance of the civil war in the Congo shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.  If you don't stop your childish, bratty, bitter name-calling I will be forced to report you.  The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.  Otherwise, Tinmore would not have asked if there were any other conflicts in the world, 100 years old or not.  It is because of the media's obsession with Israel, that millions of other ppl die in the world, with no notice of them whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that anti-Israel ppl know of no other conflict in the world displays something about you guys, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is not true. Many Palestinians and their supporters regularly work in the Middle East and Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much time did You spend in the middle east?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> How much time did you spend in Nazi Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a straight question, why can't You simply answer?
> 
> Both of my family branches fought the fascists and the nazis, both in Europe and in Africa.
> Most of the family in Europe on my wife's side perished as a result.
> 
> Your turn:
> *
> So how much time actually did You spend in the middle east?*
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy*

**


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The debates
※→   P F Tinmore, et al,

Given the rate of evolution on the ground reality in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; this discussion panel is goo food for though, but not necessarily representative of the current _status quo_.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy*


*(COMMENT)*

This coming January, this video _(January 2013)_ will be five years old.  This was released about a month after the  A/RES/67/19  Palestine non-member observer State 4 December 2012.

IMO, the current settlement policy may not be in the best interest of Israel.  But since the Arab Palestinians request Peace Talk or activate one of the "Dispute Resolution" process.  Absent at least one overt political act towards the undertaking in furtherance of that one of the agreed upon processes.

So, I don't agree with three out of four speakers; in favor of Caroline Glick.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The debates
> ※→   P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Given the rate of evolution on the ground reality in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; this discussion panel is goo food for though, but not necessarily representative of the current _status quo_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This coming January, this video _(January 2013)_ will be five years old.  This was released about a month after the  A/RES/67/19  Palestine non-member observer State 4 December 2012.
> 
> IMO, the current settlement policy may not be in the best interest of Israel.  But since the Arab Palestinians request Peace Talk or activate one of the "Dispute Resolution" process.  Absent at least one overt political act towards the undertaking in furtherance of that one of the agreed upon processes.
> 
> So, I don't agree with three out of four speakers; in favor of Caroline Glick.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I really do not understand your post.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Two-State Solution Debate*

********


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Dr. Eric Meyers' Speech at AIME Forum in Chapel Hill*

**
*Rev. Ronald Shive's Speech at AIME Forum in Chapel Hill*

**
*Josh Ruebner's Speech at AIME Forum in Chapel Hill*

**
*Yousef Munayyer's Presentation at AIME Forum in Chapel Hill


Q&A Session at AIME Forum


*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Richard Boyd Barrett- Israel is not a normal state and should not be treated as such*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jeremy Ben-Ami Alan Dershowitz*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate - Nakba Day (The Day of Catastrophe)*

**


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
Click to expand...



If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
Click to expand...

Which Arabs?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> 
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why does every map of Israel show it with those fake "67 borders?"


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
> 
> 
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does every map of Israel show it with those fake "67 borders?"
Click to expand...



They are not really borders, to be sure.  But they are the starting point for negotiations.  And they were always more sacrosanct to Palestinian leaders than to Israeli leaders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They never were borders.
> 
> What law are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does every map of Israel show it with those fake "67 borders?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are not really borders, to be sure.  But they are the starting point for negotiations.  And they were always more sacrosanct to Palestinian leaders than to Israeli leaders.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never borders then Israel doesn’t have to “ respect” them? Another justification for the Arabs initiating the 67 War
> 
> 
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does every map of Israel show it with those fake "67 borders?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are not really borders, to be sure.  But they are the starting point for negotiations.  And they were always more sacrosanct to Palestinian leaders than to Israeli leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

 
“ Fake 67 Borders?”  The ones Isrsel doesn’t have to respect because the Arabs didn’t? I agree.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Arabs?[/QUOTE
> 
> The subject is about the “ 67 Borders” which were NOT respected by the Arab World and you claim never existed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does every map of Israel show it with those fake "67 borders?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are not really borders, to be sure.  But they are the starting point for negotiations.  And they were always more sacrosanct to Palestinian leaders than to Israeli leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “ Fake 67 Borders?”  The ones Isrsel doesn’t have to respect because the Arabs didn’t? I agree.
Click to expand...

So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.



The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
Click to expand...

It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Don't be daft.  There is no dispute over the territory's external borders.  There are two internal groups in conflict for the territory, within those borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be daft.  There is no dispute over the territory's external borders.  There are two internal groups in conflict for the territory, within those borders.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Palestine's international borders have not been changed by any treaty.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Obviously there was before 1967


----------



## admonit

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be daft.  There is no dispute over the territory's external borders.  There are two internal groups in conflict for the territory, within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Palestine's international borders have not been changed by any treaty.
Click to expand...

You cannot change something that doesn't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously there was before 1967
Click to expand...

Obvious to whom?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

admonit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be daft.  There is no dispute over the territory's external borders.  There are two internal groups in conflict for the territory, within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Palestine's international borders have not been changed by any treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot change something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Why do you spout false Israeli talking points?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...



Actually, there are some Palestinians who believe in a 2-state solution.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are Israel's borders. You can't have land without borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory has one set of borders.  There is absolutely no dispute that the territory has external borders.  With every neighboring Sovereign.  Thus the dispute is an internal, civil dispute over sovereignty within those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's dispute. There is no dispute for the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are some Palestinians who believe in a 2-state solution.
Click to expand...

OK, but not the bantustans proposed by Israel.


----------



## DGS49

The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].

And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.

Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."


----------



## P F Tinmore

DGS49 said:


> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."





DGS49 said:


> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.


That isn't the issue.


----------



## admonit

P F Tinmore said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

It is.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

 
That is the issue. Why should there be a “ Palestinian” NJA” state but not a Jewish one?  

What should the borders of “ Palestine” be?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the issue. Why should there be a “ Palestinian” NJA” state but not a Jewish one?
> 
> What should the borders of “ Palestine” be?
Click to expand...

Palestine already has borders and there are Jews living in the West Bank.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

Q. Why in the majority of these "debates" the pro- Israeli voice is overwhelmingly misrepresented?
Team Palestine can't hold a  serious debate one-on-one without the help of Al-Jazeera or a team of cheerleaders singing in unison.

That's why You choose Frankenstein as an opponent, and go to IranTV to 'debate'.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the issue. Why should there be a “ Palestinian” NJA” state but not a Jewish one?
> 
> What should the borders of “ Palestine” be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine already has borders and there are Jews living in the West Bank.
Click to expand...


And there're no Jews living in the East bank, what more do they need?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the issue. Why should there be a “ Palestinian” NJA” state but not a Jewish one?
> 
> What should the borders of “ Palestine” be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine already has borders and there are Jews living in the West Bank.
Click to expand...


No Jews In Gaza’istan. Not surprising you chose to islamo-tap dance around that.

Regarding Jews in the mini-caliphate of Fatah’istan:

Abbas: 'Not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "some" Palestinians advocate a two-state "solution" is specious.  No prominent Palestinian has ever acknowledged Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE.  [Were one to do so, s/he would quickly be assassinated].
> 
> And to put that in context, there are literally scores of countries in the world that are avowedly Islamic, and no one bats an eyelash, but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Please 'splain how that works.  It is a position that in fact totally obviates the nominal "two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the possible existence of one Jewish state is something that no Muslim will countenance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the issue. Why should there be a “ Palestinian” NJA” state but not a Jewish one?
> 
> What should the borders of “ Palestine” be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine already has borders and there are Jews living in the West Bank.
Click to expand...


Disney World has borders, too. Just like you your invented “country of Pally’Land”

Maps | Walt Disney World Resort


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Q. Why in the majority of these "debates" the pro- Israeli voice is overwhelmingly misrepresented?
> Team Palestine can't hold a  serious debate one-on-one without the help of Al-Jazeera or a team of cheerleaders singing in unison.
> 
> That's why You choose Frankenstein as an opponent, and go to IranTV to 'debate'.


You can post any debate you like. There aren't very many. Most are one sided panel discussions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate- Plight of Palestinians Ft. Catherine Shakdam on PressTV*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

*‘Jerusalem is like a wife, you can’t share it’ – Israeli debates Arab on RT*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Stream - Should it be illegal for American companies to boycott Israel?*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Islamic terrorist debates.


----------



## rylah

*Aljazeera debate over Jerusalem following Trump's recognition of it as Israel's capital*

Abd al-Rahman Saeed Kuki vs Mordechai Kedar


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Debate: Academic Boycott of Israeli Universities*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


>



What's behind the Gaza protests?


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's behind the Gaza protests?
Click to expand...

Didn't see any of those at the protest.


----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's behind the Gaza protests?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't see any of those at the protest.
Click to expand...


Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word, 'behind'?

behind - Wiktionary


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's behind the Gaza protests?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't see any of those at the protest.
Click to expand...


Expectations surrounding your abilities are kept low. The majority of those Arabs-Moslems killed in the phony “protests” were your heroes from Hamas. 


All praise is due to Allah.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's behind the Gaza protests?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't see any of those at the protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Expectations surrounding your abilities are kept low. The majority of those Arabs-Moslems killed in the phony “protests” were your heroes from Hamas.
> 
> 
> All praise is due to Allah.
Click to expand...

Unarmed protestor none the same.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's behind the Gaza protests?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't see any of those at the protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Expectations surrounding your abilities are kept low. The majority of those Arabs-Moslems killed in the phony “protests” were your heroes from Hamas.
> 
> 
> All praise is due to Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unarmed protestor none the same.
Click to expand...


Unarmed only in the alternate reality you dwell in. 

Do you feel better about your situation believing ignorance is a virtue?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Rubbish,
Palestinian Arabs are incapable of giving *peace to anyone*.
They can barely stop murdering each other.

Q. What can the Gazans offer Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*




There is no debate about the reality of Arab-Moslem terrorism.


----------



## Votto

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Click to expand...


Spot on!

There have been more UN resolutions against the Zionist state than against any other country, even though just South of the border a genocide was carried out in the Sudan on a large scale.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **


_*"Palestinian resistance"*_

 translation:

Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza... 
for "resistance" sake of course.












*HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*

*Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.

There won't be a debate.


----------



## Linkiloo

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
Click to expand...

Maybe he is looking for a debate on gay rights...


----------



## theliq

Votto said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on!
> 
> There have been more UN resolutions against the Zionist state than against any other country, even though just South of the border a genocide was carried out in the Sudan on a large scale.
Click to expand...

YOU NEED TO IMPROVE YOUR GEOGRAPHY,South Sudan (is what you meant} is 2000 km  away, just South of the border is a slight exaggeration methinks...steve


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
Click to expand...

Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
Click to expand...


The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.

If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?


Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:


*Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_

Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
Click to expand...

YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN The Hague...because of the numerous War Crimes You have Committed...FACT......TO COME ON HERE AND LIE AS YOU DO,PROVES WHAT A DARSTARDLY INDIVIDUAL YOU ARE....LIE ON,LIAR


----------



## fncceo

theliq said:


> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE







Use it ... it's free.


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
Click to expand...

Despite some of your Dreadful Posts in the main,,,,You do have a sense of humour...Always glad to be the Butt of your Jokes....It somehow Humanizes You,which is a good thing for you...so in a way I am helping you in your recovery back to normality of a citizen of the world...I just wish Rylah,who I think is a good bloke despite his enthusiasm to overstate and lie about the crimes committed by his cult,like all of you misled sadly...steve


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
Click to expand...


Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:

Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip

*Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.







When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.


----------



## fncceo

theliq said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite some of your Dreadful Posts in the main,,,,You do have a sense of humour...Always glad to be the Butt of your Jokes....It somehow Humanizes You,which is a good thing for you...so in a way I am helping you in your recovery back to normality of a citizen of the world...I just wish Rylah,who I think is a good bloke despite his enthusiasm to overstate and lie about the crimes committed by his cult,like all of you misled sadly...steve
Click to expand...


Don't bogans learn basic grammar in your schools?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates. There are some short one on ones in news shows where there is only time to throw around the standard talking points. Here is one that is more comprehensive with 4 Jews and 2 Palestinians. Hopefully there will be more.
> 
> *What we talk about when we talk about Israel/Palestine *
> 
> **



*"Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates..."*

- i dunno, maybe it's because islamic terrorism is the star-conflict on planet earth
- or maybe it's because - underneath it all, 'this major conflict' --- it's so delicate...maybe it has to do with the [underlying] terroristic government of the palestinan people, [uknowwho] and abbas is a bonified nazi.  isn't it hard to make deals or negotiate peace  with terrorists and nazi's?


----------



## Votto

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
Click to expand...


WTH?

My keyboard charges me a buck 50 every time I push it.


----------



## fncceo

Votto said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH?
> 
> My keyboard charges me a buck 50 every time I push it.
Click to expand...


Jewish plot.   Muuuaaahahahah!


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*

**


----------



## RoccoR

RE: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/19971361/']The debates[/URL]
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

While it may appear that the analysis _(by the Islam Channel and others)_ are saying that Israel is losing the PR battle. I think Ambassador Nikki Haley has it right.  It is questionable as to whether countries like the Russian Federation, The Peoples Republic of China, or even the United Kingdom or even the French Republic would have responded faced by the swarm on their border knowing that it included a significant number of terrorist organization members. 



P F Tinmore said:


> *Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*


*(COMMENT)*

Video clips like this are just part of the overall effort by the Arab Palestinians, sponosored by those that support the terrorist group HAMAS.

•  *Beware of Hamas-produced fakery in “peaceful” march to Israel’s border*
You just got to see this article and the video showing the production of fake video.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The debates
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> While it may appear that the analysis _(by the Islam Channel and others)_ are saying that Israel is losing the PR battle. I think Ambassador Nikki Haley has it right.  It is questionable as to whether countries like the Russian Federation, The Peoples Republic of China, or even the United Kingdom or even the French Republic would have responded faced by the swarm on their border knowing that it included a significant number of terrorist organization members.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Video clips like this are just part of the overall effort by the Arab Palestinians, sponosored by those that support the terrorist group HAMAS.
> 
> •  *Beware of Hamas-produced fakery in “peaceful” march to Israel’s border*
> You just got to see this article and the video showing the production of fake video.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Ziowood Productions!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The debates
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> While it may appear that the analysis _(by the Islam Channel and others)_ are saying that Israel is losing the PR battle. I think Ambassador Nikki Haley has it right.  It is questionable as to whether countries like the Russian Federation, The Peoples Republic of China, or even the United Kingdom or even the French Republic would have responded faced by the swarm on their border knowing that it included a significant number of terrorist organization members.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Video clips like this are just part of the overall effort by the Arab Palestinians, sponosored by those that support the terrorist group HAMAS.
> 
> •  *Beware of Hamas-produced fakery in “peaceful” march to Israel’s border*
> You just got to see this article and the video showing the production of fake video.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ziowood Productions!
Click to expand...


It’s predictable that you would hope to sidestep the fake injuries and cartooonish examples of _The Best of Pallywood Productions_, but there is a host of documentary evidence regarding Arab-Moslem fraud.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before; “Peaceful Islamic terrorist protests”


----------



## member

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The debates
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> While it may appear that the analysis _(by the Islam Channel and others)_ are saying that Israel is losing the PR battle. I think Ambassador Nikki Haley has it right.  It is questionable as to whether countries like the Russian Federation, The Peoples Republic of China, or even the United Kingdom or even the French Republic would have responded faced by the swarm on their border knowing that it included a significant number of terrorist organization members.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Video clips like this are just part of the overall effort by the Arab Palestinians, sponosored by those that support the terrorist group HAMAS.
> 
> •  *Beware of Hamas-produced fakery in “peaceful” march to Israel’s border*
> You just got to see this article and the video showing the production of fake video.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ziowood Productions!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s predictable that you would hope to sidestep the fake injuries and cartooonish examples of _The Best of Pallywood Productions_, but there is a host of documentary evidence regarding Arab-Moslem fraud.
> 
> Stop me if you’ve heard this one before; “Peaceful Islamic terrorist protests”
Click to expand...


_*"Ambassador Nikki Haley..."*_

omg.  love her!


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Analysis — Is Israel losing international support?*
> 
> **



When did Israel ever enjoy much of support from the nations?
Israel always succeeded in spite of international attacks and discrimination.

I would go so far as to say, that Baruch Hashem,  Israel has never seen such a wide and strong support from all directions as we see today.


----------



## Hollie

Israel-Saudi relations are being changed by a mutual enemy  - CNN

How a mutual enemy is changing Israel-Saudi relations


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
Click to expand...

Garbage the Law was changed because of the report and vision of the ABC..../FACT


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> Israel-Saudi relations are being changed by a mutual enemy  - CNN
> 
> How a mutual enemy is changing Israel-Saudi relations


Wow..the collusion of 2 DESPOTIC COUNTRIES..........you should watch who you sleep with Hollie


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
Click to expand...

You may get a Laugh from the CRETINS but you and I both know the Truth and Fact,fncceo,so I won't demean you in public






THIS TIME...steve


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use it ... it's free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite some of your Dreadful Posts in the main,,,,You do have a sense of humour...Always glad to be the Butt of your Jokes....It somehow Humanizes You,which is a good thing for you...so in a way I am helping you in your recovery back to normality of a citizen of the world...I just wish Rylah,who I think is a good bloke despite his enthusiasm to overstate and lie about the crimes committed by his cult,like all of you misled sadly...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bogans learn basic grammar in your schools?
Click to expand...

Not usually when dealing with Dunce Heads.......steve......


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
Click to expand...

You need to take that silver spoon but probably wooden,OUT OF YOUR ASS AND SHOVE IT IN YOUR MOUTH,I RECKON YOU HAVE ALREADY............BECAUSE YOU SPEAk such shit...STEVE


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Debate: Palestinian Resistance*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
Click to expand...

THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT


----------



## Linkiloo

Geey Steve, can you rephrase?


theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Palestinian resistance"*_
> 
> translation:
> 
> Iran opens another gay-hanging franchise in Gaza...
> for "resistance" sake of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX*
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason.
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore will keep educating us about his favorite Jihadi "freedom fighters",
> cause You know - freedom from homosexuals and Jews is a basic international low each Islamist is born entitled to.
> 
> There won't be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
Click to expand...

You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## member

Linkiloo said:


> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much Iike when the Australian Broardcasting Corporation found the Israeli Zionist Trash were imprisoning Palestinian Children in Steel Cages in the open and in all weathers day and night....some as young as 10...you hateful people have no moral high ground...yet you think you have,,,you live in quick sand and shall be cast assunder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
Click to expand...


*Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_

it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..






allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."


----------



## theliq

member said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABC found nothing, all they did was spread was a false report from 4 years ago by an NGO that didn't even mention the word "Palestinians".  The rest of Your banal melodrama is no less pathetic.
> 
> If biggots support Hamas capital punishment for mere sexual preference,
> then why should I care about any of their "hero Jihadis" who openly call to murder Jews and go die together, while marching to my house with a Swastika on their flag?
> 
> 
> Anyone who values life, has a higher moral ground than any of those suicidal maniacs who seek the death of their children as the pinnacle of life:
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers". *_
> 
> Feel free to shove Your "moral high ground" into that place where Your head suffers low oxygen inflow...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
Click to expand...

What a strange old Dog you R


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a strange old Dog you R
Click to expand...

member is a female and has been entertaining our group with wisdom for years. Now, go soak your head , Steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a strange old Dog you R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> member is a female and has been entertaining our group with wisdom for years. Now, go soak your head , Steve
Click to expand...

EEEEErrrrrrrrr WISDOM,Crikey Hoss I think you said that about Hillary and she was a Curr.....mind you, apologies to Member,if I had known I would never have made such an utterance...thank you for giving me sound advice,I'll get off my knees now,stand tall and soon forward,steve,a remorseful SOAKING WET theliq


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Great Debate Israel-Palestine: Is Peace Possible?*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

There's no debate with islamic terrorists.


----------



## member

Hollie said:


> There's no debate with islamic terrorists.



if it didn't have the _"more than 40 palestinians...deceased"_ - could be images from turkey, egypt, iraq...
(they all start to 

 "look-alike" after awhile).

...the dress code, the STAFF gets to wear T-shirt and jeans -  i thought i saw someone with a 

  jordache jeans patch.  they don't have to get to tribal looking [like in afghanstn].  -- isn't that wonderful for them, the palestinians--they can come to work in comfortable clothes--no robe, suit&tie or whatever the taliban wear....

...only the top palestinian gov't workers get to dress up on those special occasions...


----------



## member

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a strange old Dog you R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> member is a female and has been entertaining our group with wisdom for years. Now, go soak your head , Steve
Click to expand...



why....that's so *sweet* of you.....




...as for 

 *steve*..... 
















 you and i both know:  he lives "in another world" _downunder_....


----------



## member

theliq said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR,WE STOPPED YOUR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,LIKE SO MANY ASPECTS OF YOUR CORUPT CULTURE....YOU ZIONIST TERRORISTS SHOULD BE IN DEN HAARGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a strange old Dog you R
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

member said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geey Steve, can you rephrase?
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind You why You even came here to spew that pathetic half backed melodrama:
> 
> Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip
> 
> *Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip* is practiced by the Hamas Administration since it assumed power in 2007. The punishment is given for offenses, such as crimes against the Islamic Law (including murder, homosexual activities, etc.), land sales to Jews and treason. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip inherited the Palestinian National Authority code of law, which included the death penalty for several kinds of offenses, but while the Palestinian administration in Ramallah has refrained from executing capital punishments, death sentences are periodically performed by Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When You send that case to Haague, don't forget to mention that in Gaza'stan-
> they give goats more privileges than to suspected homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> THESE ARE SHOCKING PICS ry and don"t agree with them at all....STEVE but maybe they are collaborators with the Zionists THEN I AM ABEVILENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't agree with them all? Some of them you agree with? And can you please re-phrase using capitals where they belong and proper spelling? Don't the Australians speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian mother says with a WIDE SMILE:* _*" Life is Zero, Life is worthless - that's why we have all those suicide bombers*_
> 
> it's not true. "the reason"* -- ALL THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS*.  excuses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allah-akbar screaming Terrorists [or people brainwashed to THINK they should be terrorists] this isn't how they "feel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a strange old Dog you R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Shit,I can see you take NO PRISONERS Member,I'd hate to really upset you,LOL...steven...Hoss warned me about,ladies like you...steven


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


>


Regrettably Tinnie,the Yanks will Veto,Veto,Veto...such is the Doormat this once Great Nation have become under the influence of the Zionist Terrorists AKA Israel or more educated circles, Zionstan...steve


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Islamic terrorists lose the debate.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

*This House Believes Israel is a Rogue State | The Cambridge Union*

**


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *This House Believes Israel is a Rogue State | The Cambridge Union*
> 
> **




Wow.  Four minutes into that and its already problematic on several levels.  Even his definitions at the outset are problematic.


----------



## Shusha

I watched the rest of that. Not a good debate. 

First, the objective definition of "rogue state" was not defined. And it needs to be. 

Secondly, the idea of presenting Israel as a rogue state without adequately defining what that objectively means creates the problem of deliberately framing the debate as, "what Israel does is what a rogue state is". 

Finally, there is an inherent antisemitism in the entire call to address Israel, uniquely, as a rogue state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noah Feldman & Duncan Kennedy Debate "Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic?"*

**


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> *Noah Feldman & Duncan Kennedy Debate "Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic?"*
> 
> **



Can “ Palestine” be both Palestinian and Democratic ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Future of Israel and Palestine: Expanding the Debate*

**


----------



## Hollie

The future of the Death Cult.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Ecocertifmrl

P F Tinmore said:


> *Dialogues: Is Israel an apartheid state?*
> 
> **


Yes.


----------



## Ecocertifmrl

P F Tinmore said:


>


Ew ew ew


----------



## Ecocertifmrl

ProudVeteran76 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProudVeteran76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they weren't concerned about the " 67 Borders" before the 67 War. Those Borders are DOA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about the UN. I was referring to the Arab World for NOT recognizing those borders and respecting " International Law"
Click to expand...

Well international law means nothing to Israel.


----------



## Ecocertifmrl

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
Click to expand...

Crimea? Very similar to this. Everyone knows the truth but the propaganda keeps a few paid internet trolls around saying things like "we are just trying help there people - look here's my friend beating the shit out of my grampa".


----------



## toobfreak

P F Tinmore said:


> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.



No, we're just sick and tired of hearing you and Arabs whine and complain.  We get enough of it from our own American Left.


----------



## Ecocertifmrl

toobfreak said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're just sick and tired of hearing you and Arabs whine and complain.  We get enough of it from our own American Left.
Click to expand...

The american left is the sound of common sense


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Matthew Brodsky and Phyllis Bennis on the Palestinian state\'s entry into the ICC*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*The U.S. Should Step Back From Its Relationship With Israel*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Crisis of Zionism: Peter Beinart and Alan Dershowitz*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Debate: Does U.N. Statehood Bid Advance or Undermine Palestinian Struggle?*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Gaza Killings: Who is to blame? | Head to Head*

**


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Gaza Killings: Who is to blame? | Head to Head*
> 
> **



Wow.  That is a colossally bad "debate" with the host constantly talking over his guest and throwing wild accusations around, like kite bombs, bullying his opponent and silencing him. 

There was an egregious example of twisting law and legal concepts in such a way as to make Israeli actions "illegal" where that law would not be applied in that way to any other country.  

Ms. Buttu claims, "...the only time a soldier can shoot is if that soldier himself or herself is under immanent threat."

That is simply factually incorrect.  Under international law, during conflict, soldiers can engage using force, including lethal force, for a wide variety of reasons:  to achieve a military objective, to address enemy combatants, to protect citizens, to protect the lives of comrades.  The claim that a solider's only purpose is to prevent his own death is patently ridiculous.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>



Tell us please who would be part of this “ International Inquiry “.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Ahead"*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Where is the supposed floor wiping?
It's like a Muslim "winning a debate" over Papacy in his own mosque on Christmas eve.

Nasser convinced himself and all of the Egyptians on the radio, that they were victorious in their war against Israel, it just happened that in real life they were the biggest losers.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



You are comparing Palestinian dispossession with (Australian) aboriginal dispossession?

Yes, I think its comparable.

Its obviously comparable and I think European Australians still don't really understand what it means to have been dispossessed in that way and our good life depends on that dispossession and therefore redress must be made. 



So, here is the thing -- the essence of the debate.  Its such a simple thing.  And yet is a thing which is ignored, glossed over, rejected, set aside, erased.  The Jewish people have been dispossessed.


----------



## member

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us please who would be part of this “ International Inquiry “.
Click to expand...



Who else?  - haters of 

 democracy in the *"International Community."*

and these..........'it's meeting time !' --  "where's the buffet and my free continental breakfast" -

the 

 *U.N*....

 _people_.. 

 Brr.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>




Where did he “ wipe the floor “ with him; When he called Israel “ A tragedy against Humanity?” He talks about “ documents” why doesn’t he produce them?
  The more they talk the more you realize that their Goal is the Destruction of the Jewish State; Translation; no “ Right of Return”


----------



## rylah

*Debate: Do You have confidence in the current Palestinian leaders?*
A unique joint appearance of both Hamas and Fatah officials in an attempt at public debate. Reveals why such meetings were never repeated in public.
*
*


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> *Gaza Killings: Who is to blame? | Head to Head*
> 
> **




*"Gaza Killings: Who is to Blame?"*






- Not God 








 human nature chap?


Palestine, back then, the “Hebrews” [jews]  lived there…then, nobody liked that, and new villagers came & went….then, muslims wanted to live there….[brr] ..then Israel was established....


...Hello 

 kite bombs. “human nature.” 









_On the other hand …_








It’s always going to… 

 _go on_.  So, thank God for good 

 human nature….


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Debate: Do You have confidence in the current Palestinian leaders?*
> A unique joint appearance of both Hamas and Fatah officials in an attempt at public debate. Reveals why such meetings were never repeated in public.
> *
> *


This was very painful to watch.

One of the main issues was the reconciliation agreements. Fatah and Hamas went to Egypt to work out a reconciliation agreement.They did agree on a list of issues.

However, when Egypt compiled these issues into the final document they changed it. Hamas refused to sign it because it was not what they agreed to. One of the Hamas members of the debate mentioned this briefly but the debate shuffled onto another topic.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Debate: Do You have confidence in the current Palestinian leaders?*
> A unique joint appearance of both Hamas and Fatah officials in an attempt at public debate. Reveals why such meetings were never repeated in public.
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This was very painful to watch.
> 
> One of the main issues was the reconciliation agreements. Fatah and Hamas went to Egypt to work out a reconciliation agreement.They did agree on a list of issues.
> 
> However, when Egypt compiled these issues into the final document they changed it. Hamas refused to sign it because it was not what they agreed to. One of the Hamas members of the debate mentioned this briefly but the debate shuffled onto another topic.
Click to expand...


Definately painful to watch. A collection of miscreant Islamist tribesmen pretending to be responsible human beings.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>



People were ONLY protesting and throwing stones? Do you HONESTLY believe that???


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Perspectives on Colleges and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict*

**


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


>




_islam_ and their lands.....brrr.....


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

*A debate between Israel hater and a Jewish store owner

*


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


>



Owen Jones is a total twit. Everyone makes fun of him. 

If there's a blockade, where do they  get the rockets from?


----------



## Mindful

Owen Jones, having one of his hissy fits:


----------



## danielpalos

P F Tinmore said:


> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates. There are some short one on ones in news shows where there is only time to throw around the standard talking points. Here is one that is more comprehensive with 4 Jews and 2 Palestinians. Hopefully there will be more.
> 
> *What we talk about when we talk about Israel/Palestine *
> 
> **


Jews alleging Israel is their State not Judea.  Can we get clarification on this issue?


----------



## danielpalos

People should be told to stop blaming the Jews; there is no State of Judea.  

And, nobody should be giving Hebrews reading their Hebrew bible, a difficult time.  

The right wing simply has comprehension problems, like usual.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Back from the brink? Gaza shootout triggers worst figting since 2014*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate - Israel Gaza Escalation*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Debate - Israel Defeat in Gaza*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Back from the brink? Gaza shootout triggers worst figting since 2014*
> 
> **


I thought a debate meant that 2 sides participate.

*Q. When was this "period of quiet" when Hamas didn't send people to infiltrate into Israeli communities, when was such a day?*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Debate - Israel Gaza Escalation*
> 
> **



This is not a debate, but an Arab and an Iranian trying to out-voice an elderly Jewish woman.

*Q.What does it tell us about the quality of their narrative?*


----------



## rylah

Hamas chief spokesman declared during the Gaza March that they will "cleanse Palestine from the filthy Jews by 2022" and establish a Caliphate.


Liebrman resigned, as he did several times before wide operations took place, almost systematically.


Iran broadcasts Lieberman's arguments of_ "defeat to terror" _while actively building forces to the north and declaring full support to Hamas.


At the same time more Arab states and Israel establish a wider cooperation in the region.
*Debate this -* Should Israel take the bait of the tail risking to inflame both fronts, or wait it out betting on the head of the snake?


----------



## danielpalos

A State of Judea so Israelis can claim, don't want it our way, let's get the Judeans involved.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Al-Nakba debate | Featured Documentary*

**


----------



## rylah

*The Jewish Nakba*


----------



## danielpalos

Do we need a State of Judea to try to prove Ten simple Commandments from a God, can eschew the Expense of Government. 

If the "Chosen Ones" can't do it; it can't be done. 

We have secular and temporal Constitutions, in that case.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Trump's Jerusalem plan: A capital mistake? | DW English*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine?*

**


----------



## Hollie

Mob debate.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  *The debates *
※→  et al,

As usual, the question of Support to Israel is presented as only al-Jazeera can frame it.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine?*
> *
> *
> ​


*(COMMENT)*

◈  This is a well assembled, format.  But America is NOT "Neutral."  America is NOT going to lie about it → and say → in the face of indisputed demonstration, that it is such.

◈  Israel is our strategic ally.

◈  NOT everyone in America sees Israel in the same perspective.
.................................................................................................................
√  America wants peace --- but NOT in the sacrifical expense of Israel.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toobfreak

P F Tinmore said:


> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.



What is there left to debate?  What is there left to talk about?  The Arabs have made peace and coexistence impossible, they show total unwillingness to live in harmony.  They bring nothing but war upon their neighbors, and now they are going to lose more land, more lives, and more support until eventually, they are disbursed with no where left to call home.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toobfreak said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there left to debate?  What is there left to talk about?  The Arabs have made peace and coexistence impossible, they show total unwillingness to live in harmony.  They bring nothing but war upon their neighbors, and now they are going to lose more land, more lives, and more support until eventually, they are disbursed with no where left to call home.
Click to expand...


Nowhere left to call home except 21 oil-rich countries.


----------



## toobfreak

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there left to debate?  What is there left to talk about?  The Arabs have made peace and coexistence impossible, they show total unwillingness to live in harmony.  They bring nothing but war upon their neighbors, and now they are going to lose more land, more lives, and more support until eventually, they are disbursed with no where left to call home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere left to call home except 21 oil-rich countries.
Click to expand...


Then what's keeping them there suffering in Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*2019 Yitzhak Rabin Lecture: US Jews and Israel: Are we headed for divorce?*

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The debates
⁜→  toobfreak, ForeverYoung436, P F Tinmore, et al,

To best describe the Arab Palestinians one has to understand → a psychological problem that runs rampant in depressed territories and regions. They are a population of “politically effected long-termers” in in the depressed territories and regions. It is a population that is familiar with the technology that is updated, but beyond them in terms of the impact both socially and pschologically.  They are unable to adapt in terms of social, economic and political policies; much of which is tribal and outdated.



toobfreak said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's keeping them there suffering in Palestine?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Most of the Arab Palestinian legacy beliefs of today are actually scwabbles held over from Lost Generation _(a Gertrude Stein term)_, born 1883 and 1900.  The Arab Palestinians were never able to push past the era of the Greatest Generation (born ≈ 1901 to 1927) and through the The Silent Generation, The Baby Boomers _(Korean, Viet Nam, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the Conflicts in the darker places like Somalia and Yemen)_, Generation X, The Millennials, and into today's Generation Z'ers.  Less than 10% of today's Arab Palestinian population was alive during the lifetime of Albert Einstien (1879-1955) and Neils Bohr (1885-1962) contemplated the inner workings and hidden mechanism of those great men _(BTW:  Both had at least one Jewish Parent - and  - both had are Nobel Laureates.)_.  OH!   The Arab Palestinians know how to use today's technology but have no experience and made no real contribution to the development of these wonders or today's technology.

The Arab Palestinians generally have no respect due to all fellow sentient beings _(especially the Jewish)_, and kill on the basis of a sense of entitlement and issues that were determined more than half a century ago, and before the creation of a Palestinian State.

The Arab Palestinians expect a reward for something they did not earn, yet want surrendered to them.  None, I repeat, none of the Arab Palestinians were alive to remember a time when their generation established sovereignty, let alone during any time in which some generation defended their sovereignty.

AND, the Arab Palestinians of today were never alive in a time when they politically accept the consequences of their actions or respected the international laws protecting life.

Just My Thought →
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The debates
> ⁜→  toobfreak, ForeverYoung436, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To best describe the Arab Palestinians one has to understand → a psychological problem that runs rampant in depressed territories and regions. They are a population of “politically effected long-termers” in in the depressed territories and regions. It is a population that is familiar with the technology that is updated, but beyond them in terms of the impact both socially and pschologically.  They are unable to adapt in terms of social, economic and political policies; much of which is tribal and outdated.
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's keeping them there suffering in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Most of the Arab Palestinian legacy beliefs of today are actually scwabbles held over from Lost Generation _(a Gertrude Stein term)_, born 1883 and 1900.  The Arab Palestinians were never able to push past the era of the Greatest Generation (born ≈ 1901 to 1927) and through the The Silent Generation, The Baby Boomers _(Korean, Viet Nam, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the Conflicts in the darker places like Somalia and Yemen)_, Generation X, The Millennials, and into today's Generation Z'ers.  Less than 10% of today's Arab Palestinian population was alive during the lifetime of Albert Einstien (1879-1955) and Neils Bohr (1885-1962) contemplated the inner workings and hidden mechanism of those great men _(BTW:  Both had at least one Jewish Parent - and  - both had are Nobel Laureates.)_.  OH!   The Arab Palestinians know how to use today's technology but have no experience and made no real contribution to the development of these wonders or today's technology.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians generally have no respect due to all fellow sentient beings _(especially the Jewish)_, and kill on the basis of a sense of entitlement and issues that were determined more than half a century ago, and before the creation of a Palestinian State.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians expect a reward for something they did not earn, yet want surrendered to them.  None, I repeat, none of the Arab Palestinians were alive to remember a time when their generation established sovereignty, let alone during any time in which some generation defended their sovereignty.
> 
> AND, the Arab Palestinians of today were never alive in a time when they politically accept the consequences of their actions or respected the international laws protecting life.
> 
> Just My Thought →
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


If the U.S. were “ neutral “ what would be the outcome? It would be “ nothing “ like it is now


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The debates
> ⁜→  toobfreak, ForeverYoung436, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To best describe the Arab Palestinians one has to understand → a psychological problem that runs rampant in depressed territories and regions. They are a population of “politically effected long-termers” in in the depressed territories and regions. It is a population that is familiar with the technology that is updated, but beyond them in terms of the impact both socially and pschologically.  They are unable to adapt in terms of social, economic and political policies; much of which is tribal and outdated.
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's keeping them there suffering in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Most of the Arab Palestinian legacy beliefs of today are actually scwabbles held over from Lost Generation _(a Gertrude Stein term)_, born 1883 and 1900.  The Arab Palestinians were never able to push past the era of the Greatest Generation (born ≈ 1901 to 1927) and through the The Silent Generation, The Baby Boomers _(Korean, Viet Nam, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the Conflicts in the darker places like Somalia and Yemen)_, Generation X, The Millennials, and into today's Generation Z'ers.  Less than 10% of today's Arab Palestinian population was alive during the lifetime of Albert Einstien (1879-1955) and Neils Bohr (1885-1962) contemplated the inner workings and hidden mechanism of those great men _(BTW:  Both had at least one Jewish Parent - and  - both had are Nobel Laureates.)_.  OH!   The Arab Palestinians know how to use today's technology but have no experience and made no real contribution to the development of these wonders or today's technology.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians generally have no respect due to all fellow sentient beings _(especially the Jewish)_, and kill on the basis of a sense of entitlement and issues that were determined more than half a century ago, and before the creation of a Palestinian State.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians expect a reward for something they did not earn, yet want surrendered to them.  None, I repeat, none of the Arab Palestinians were alive to remember a time when their generation established sovereignty, let alone during any time in which some generation defended their sovereignty.
> 
> AND, the Arab Palestinians of today were never alive in a time when they politically accept the consequences of their actions or respected the international laws protecting life.
> 
> Just My Thought →
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

 Where do you get this shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
Click to expand...


The usual cartoons that define your ability to respond.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The debates​⁜→  toobfreak, ForeverYoung436, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, it is a good question _(Neutral or non-neutral)_, but more a very low probability for any nation that has the political influence of a super-power _(commercial, industrial, economic, military or political)_.  And at the top of the pyramid, the more likely a superpower might have multiple measures of influence.



ILOVEISRAEL said:


> If the U.S. were “ neutral “ what would be the outcome? It would be “ nothing “ like it is now


*(COMMENT)*

Counter-Question:  Do you really think that a country like the US could be "neutral" on any major issue that might have a significant influence on a fragile regional stability issue?  *(RHETORICAL)*  Certainly, you can see that the Middle East Quartet_ [*the United Nations* (Biased towards the Arab Palestinians), *the United States* (Biased towards the Israelis), *the European Union*  (Biased towards the Arab Palestinians), and __*the Russian Federation*__ (biased towards the Arab Palestinians)]_ each having its own bias and influence and pressure they bring to the table and can bring to bear.  Even the People's Republic of China _(another world power biased towards the Arab Palestinians)_ has a hat in the ring and floated a peace initiative_ [known as the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) vision]_ for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and settlement. 

✪ *A:*  If in such of an event → then yes, the world would once again write yet another chapter on the continuing saga and persecution → of the Jewish People under some re-worked version of history and done under the appearance of legal authority, when in fact, no such right or authority exists.  This is an ongoing attempt to recraft the meaning of certain laws and suggesting certain agreements make the State of Israel somehow an invalid creation through self-determination.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Natural Citizen




----------



## RoccoR

RE: The debates
⁜→  Natural Citizen, et al,

I was born in Pittsburgh myself.  I find it hard to criticize a homeboy. 



Natural Citizen said:


> Honorable Ron Paul,


*(COMMENT)*

Under the Ron Paul philosophy, the US can never go back and correct its mistakes or try a solution or mitigate the effects.  We cannot even try to make things right, as we perceive "right" today.  If you believe that, then you must also concede that Israel cannot go back and render what was once done wrong and attempt to make it right.  Things like reconciliations, settlements payments, reparations and alike are not in your playbook.   You should just fold your arms and do nothing. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## danielpalos

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 

A warfare-State economy on a for-profit basis should be considered immoral.  Even the Nazis had better morals concerning a warfare-State economy:



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## rylah

danielpalos said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> A warfare-State economy on a for-profit basis should be considered immoral.  Even the Nazis had better morals concerning a warfare-State economy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Who said there's no interest solving it?
And what modern state doesn't profit from its military industry?


----------



## rylah

Natural Citizen said:


>



That's just a ridiculous libel.
Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood before Israel was even independent.
It's right in their charter.


----------



## Natural Citizen

rylah said:


> That's just a ridiculous libel.
> Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood before Israel was even independent.
> It's right in their charter.



I don't care what they wrote in their charter. The stastesman spoke the truth. As always.

If you want to debate it more thoroughly, the Bull Ring is that way >>>>>

Just whistle for me and I'll be along to join you in the discussion shortly. You can show us all how smart you are. Wouldn't you like the opportunity to show us all how smart you are? I like to learn.


----------



## danielpalos

rylah said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> A warfare-State economy on a for-profit basis should be considered immoral.  Even the Nazis had better morals concerning a warfare-State economy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said there's no interest solving it?
> And what modern state doesn't profit from its military industry?
Click to expand...

on a for-profit basis?  even the prison industry is trying to get in on the act.  

California should have no prison overcrowding problem during fire season.


----------



## danielpalos

rylah said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a ridiculous libel.
> Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood before Israel was even independent.
> It's right in their charter.
Click to expand...

we need another State in historic Palestine; what is the holdup?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*A debate between Peter Beinart and Yousef Munayyer

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*OppiTV: Gaza and Media Live Debate*

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



There's no debate here.
It's a choir singing everything in unison

We get it - "Trump is a loser, Netanyahu will fall, America bad, Israel bad"...ad nauseam.


----------



## rylah

*Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*

Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
 Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*
> 
> Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
> Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*


Shall we pick out Bloom's lies?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*
> 
> Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
> Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we pick out Bloom's lies?
Click to expand...


You can try throw some more hollow accusations in the air,
or do the usual Jihadi duck tantrums.

Who gives


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*
> 
> Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
> Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we pick out Bloom's lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try throw some more hollow accusations in the air,
> or do the usual scared Jihadi duck dance.
> 
> Who gives
Click to expand...

Shall I take that as a no?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*
> 
> Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
> Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we pick out Bloom's lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try throw some more hollow accusations in the air,
> or do the usual scared Jihadi duck dance.
> 
> Who gives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall I take that as a no?
Click to expand...


I guess if You had anything in mind other than deflecting,
there wasn't the need for all this dancing around.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raphi Blooms DESTROYS Miko Peled's anti-Israel LIES*
> 
> Raphi Bloom DESTROYS THE LIES of notorious anti-Zionist MIKO PELED during this heated debate. Watch Miko's EPIC FAIL when Raphi calls him out for using an iPhone while calling for BDS! The debate took place at Kings College London.
> Full debate:* https://youtu.be/WyWx-zlHdzM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we pick out Bloom's lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try throw some more hollow accusations in the air,
> or do the usual scared Jihadi duck dance.
> 
> Who gives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall I take that as a no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess if You had anything in mind other than deflecting,
> there wasn't the need for all this dancing around.
Click to expand...

You are not interested.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

*World Zionist Congress Election Forum #3

*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Lund Critical Debate - Bassam Haddad & Dennis Ross - American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Lund Critical Debate - Bassam Haddad & Dennis Ross - American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
> 
> *



Typical example of "I blame everything on America"
and virtually no self-criticism or constructive response aside from "gonna change America".

Lot's of false politeness and PC,
but the issue is much more simple - it's the rhythm of power change.

The main problem with the US middle eastern policy, before even getting into specifics,
is that it can be changed with every election 4-8 years. And even if there's a constant trend,
each administration comes and goes, and even if it had the best policy there isn't time or guarantee long-term.  We see one of the aspects of this in the current situation.

Change occurs in different intervals in the west and in the east.

How can kings and emir's really get on board when they know an Obama can come
and try reshape the trajectories every 4-8 years?

This is never brought up, because it sounds un-democratic,
but would be actually a good point to be made in favor of the Arab world.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Great Israel Palestine Debate #05 - Ori Weisberg and Kefah Abukhdeir

*


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*



Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.


Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
Click to expand...

Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
Click to expand...

Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
Click to expand...


Why would you need so many?
Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute.  The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.

But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.

Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you need so many?
> Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute.  The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.
> 
> But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
> rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
> With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.
> 
> Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
> Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
> Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
> Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?
> 
> You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
> an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.
Click to expand...

I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you need so many?
> Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute.  The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.
> 
> But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
> rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
> With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.
> 
> Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
> Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
> Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
> Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?
> 
> You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
> an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.
Click to expand...


Yeah I get it, you want to have it both ways,
both claim "the conflict is non-religious" and then use Jesus as "the first Palestinian martyr"
Deny Judaism is anything but a religion, and say the conflict "has nothing to do with Jews"...
...it's clearly self contradictory, in a way that instead reveals the opposite to be true -
the more of this apparent denial, the more it reveals them as your main motives.

As for Rabbi Oury Sherki,
that's exactly what I was saying - the mere suggestion that your pseudo intellectuals get into the same room, let alone dare debate a real intellectual of such caliber intimidates you, instead of actually reaching out to debate such an influential Zionist figure, you begin by mischarechterizing and denying the relevance of his knowledge.

Exactly what I'm talking about,
let's examine by whom the anti-Israel pseudo intellectuals are intimidated,
and wouldn't dare even entertain the thought of debating as "irrelevant":


Rav Cherki was born in Algeria in 1959. His grandfather, Elyezer Cherki, was a Torah scholar and community leader in Algeria, and later in France. Elyezer served as* the president of the Zionist Federation of Algeria*(Oury Amos Cherki - Wikipedia)

Rav Cherki's father, Hayyim Gedalyah, held a *doctorate** in **economics*, and supported his grandfather in his public activities. His mother, Batya Albertin* to the House of Steg,* was a *Holocaust survivor.* Her brother, Eddie Steg, was a* physician to several French presidents.*(אורי שרקי – ויקיפדיה)

I could go on about his expertise in literate and spoken dialects of Arabic,
Latin, Greek, French, Arameic, history, political philosophy etc.
Or about his Davidic family line...you know a Jewish scholar,
a regular Sanhedrin figure, nothing special...

Essentially, if you actually knew anything about his teachers, Judaism or modern Israel,
people like you and your pseudo intellectuals would make sure to not ever
get anywhere near attempting a debate with real intellectual 'grownups'.
Let alone debate one of the leading Jewish scholars of the generation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Debates
SUBTOPIC: Panellists
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

*BLUF:* The idea of debates is NOT new. What would be novel is if the debates would elevate to an official level. But you will never get the Arab Palestinians to offer a "good faith" engagement.



P F Tinmore said:


> I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, I have to agree with:

​

			
				rylah said:
			
		

> You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
> an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.



*(COMMENT)*

I am waiting.  My experience has been that the Israelis play the long game in these matters.  Israel does not generally advertise its strategy and seldom its stealth-like intentions.  There are so many avenues of approach here and behind-the-curtain activities, that it is hard to anticipate the next move of importance and what the value might be in such a debate _(risk analysis)_.
* 




*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Panellists
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The idea of debates is NOT new. What would be novel is if the debates would elevate to an official level. But you will never get the Arab Palestinians to offer a "good faith" engagement.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, I have to agree with:
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,​an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I am waiting.  My experience has been that the Israelis play the long game in these matters.  Israel does not generally advertise its strategy and seldom its stealth-like intentions.  There are so many avenues of approach here and behind-the-curtain activities, that it is hard to anticipate the next move of importance and what the value might be in such a debate _(risk analysis)_.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


That's an interesting observation.
I would add, that from my perspective as an Israeli,
we're as a nation, intellectually very dynamic and flexible.
On top of that the culture of debate, and individual opinion is top value in Judaism.

The Talmud doesn't decide a single ruling, controversy and synthesis are the name of the game, I'll exaggerate to make a point - no one claims to actually have the correct answer, but they will sure explain the logic, similarity and difference between the different opposing points of view.

In the Torah our forefathers even argue with G-d... and change His mind
That's actually one of the meanings of the name 'Israel'.

Israel's enemies are usually exactly the opposite, they think in great masses and conformity.
Jews are always a minority, naturally Israelis improvise, individuality can't be predicted.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*DEBATE: Is BDS antisemitic? w/ Dani Iftach & Izzy Diab *


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
Click to expand...

What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???


----------



## danielpalos

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?


----------



## MJB12741

danielpalos said:


> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?


Opportunities given  Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.


----------



## danielpalos

MJB12741 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given  Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
Click to expand...

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
Click to expand...

It lets people know there are two sides.

The medea tells them there is only one.


----------



## MJB12741

danielpalos said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given  Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
Click to expand...

Hey fine.  I even strongly support Palestinian self determination.  No longer should Israel have to provide for them only to be condemned by the Palestinian leadership.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The Debates       
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

*BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

*PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.



danielpalos said:


> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?





MJB12741 said:


> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.





danielpalos said:


> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.


*(REFERENCE)*

◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​


​*(COMMENT)*

The KEY here is that after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was identified as a State* and *could its authorities be identified as a government*.

Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:

*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.​ 
SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE.  However, recognition is not required to be a state.  Recognition is only required for membership in the UN.  Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state.  The trouble is the matter of territory and government.  Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control?  I consider that Area "A"...
* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given  Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey fine.  I even strongly support Palestinian self determination.  No longer should Israel have to provide for them only to be condemned by the Palestinian leadership.
Click to expand...

WOW, is that misleading.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.
> 
> *PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> ◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​
> View attachment 464579​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The KEY here is that even after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was not identified as a State* or a country* nor could its authorities be identified as a government*.
> 
> Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:
> 
> *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.​*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> b) *a defined territory*;


And to the question you always duck.

Where is Israel's defined territory?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.
> 
> *PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> ◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​
> View attachment 464579​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The KEY here is that even after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was not identified as a State* or a country* nor could its authorities be identified as a government*.
> 
> Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:
> 
> *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.​*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> b) *a defined territory*;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to the question you always duck.
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
Click to expand...

Defined territory by who?  You want Israel to define it.  Bless you & let it be.


----------



## danielpalos

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.
> 
> *PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> ◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​
> View attachment 464579​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The KEY here is that after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was identified as a State* and *could its authorities be identified as a government*.
> 
> Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:
> 
> *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.​
> SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE.  However, recognition is not required to be a state.  Recognition is only required for membership in the UN.  Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state.  The trouble is the matter of territory and government.  Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control?  I consider that Area "A"...
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


There are a wide variety of views regarding the *legal status of the State of Palestine*, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is _de jure_ sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

danielpalos said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.
> 
> *PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> ◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​
> View attachment 464579​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The KEY here is that after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was identified as a State* and *could its authorities be identified as a government*.
> 
> Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:
> 
> *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.​
> SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE.  However, recognition is not required to be a state.  Recognition is only required for membership in the UN.  Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state.  The trouble is the matter of territory and government.  Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control?  I consider that Area "A"...
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a wide variety of views regarding the *legal status of the State of Palestine*, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is _de jure_ sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Click to expand...

Is Palestine a state? It depends on who you ask.

Palestine was created as a state in 1924. There has been a lot of smoke blown at the issue but there has been nothing concrete.

So, who has the authority to dismantle a foreign state?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The Debates       
SUBTOPIC: Demarcation
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF:* The demarcation of Israel is self-determined and in most cases under a bilateral agreement between Israel and its adjacent neighboring countries.



RoccoR said:


> b) *a defined territory*;





P F Tinmore said:


> And to the question you always duck.
> *Where is Israel's defined territory?*


*(DEMARCATION REFERENCES)*

◈ _Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel _•​​◈ _Golan Heights Law_ •​​◈ _Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace_ •​​◈ _Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)_ •​​◈ _Lebanese Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon_ •​
*(COMMENT)*

See *Posting 631, RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews*.   
See _*Posting 18112 RE:  Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*_
See *Posting # 78 RE:  Israel's Lies*

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.  In the case of the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the applicable international boundaries were established at the conclusion of the 1948 War for Independence.  These boundaries were outlined in the two Treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan _(supra)_.​​*Article 11. *Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty* • **Pg 39 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.​​*Article 11. *Boundary regimes, Law of Treaties* • **Pg 60 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​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.​* 
(Ω)*

You make this point • "And to the question, you always duck" • regularly.  And each time I respond.  What is it that you think I "duck?"
* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
Click to expand...

Hurt feelings?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.
> 
> *PREFACE*:  As a layman, I can see a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunities given Opportunities rejected.  Go figure Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN.  They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> ◈  LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​RESTRICTED *A/AC.21/UK/42  25 February 1948*  Memorandum "A"​EXCERPT:  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.​​◈  Issues Related to *General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19* on the Status of Palestine​RESTRICTED _*Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs*_ 11 December 2012​
> View attachment 464579​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The KEY here is that after *A/RES/67/19*, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United  Nations," Palestine *was identified as a State* and *could its authorities be identified as a government*.
> 
> Under the _*Montevideo Convention (1933)*_ there are criteria:
> 
> *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.​
> SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE.  However, recognition is not required to be a state.  Recognition is only required for membership in the UN.  Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state.  The trouble is the matter of territory and government.  Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control?  I consider that Area "A"...
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a wide variety of views regarding the *legal status of the State of Palestine*, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is _de jure_ sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Palestine a state? It depends on who you ask.
> 
> Palestine was created as a state in 1924. There has been a lot of smoke blown at the issue but there has been nothing concrete.
> 
> So, who has the authority to dismantle a foreign state?
Click to expand...

Odd that you repeatedly make the false claim about a Pally state created by the Treaty of Lausanne when that Treaty did no such thing.

Rather strange that you insist on inventing your own version of history. Did you know that the Treaty of Lausanne actually invented canned tuna and French bread?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The Debates       
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

*BLUF:* At the turn into the 21st Century, it is still unclear as to what it means to be a "state" although in most cases, we can see what is not a state. No matter how you look at it, Palestine is an abnormal class of States (AKA: "dependent States"). It does not exercise full sovereignty over all the territory it claims; but, rather a number of different external powers or forces create a condition where Palestine is dependent on them for its existence.



danielpalos said:


> There are a wide variety of views regarding the *legal status of the State of Palestine*, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is _de jure_ sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine


*(PROVISIONAL QUESTION)*

◈  When (as has been said) 139 nations recognize "Palestine," what defined territory did they recognize ?​​✦  The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)​​✦  The territory formerly outlined by the 1949 Armistice Agreements​​✦  The pre-June 4th 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital​​✦  Area "A" Palestinian Authority full civil and security control​
◈  When (as has been said) 139 nations recognize "Palestine," what government did they recognize ?​​✦  The Palestinian Authority (PA)​​✦  The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)​​✦  The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (*Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated*.) Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​​✦  PA + HAMAS​
*(COMMENT)*

Israel is a sovereign state having great control over Palestine (as seen by some as another state) that has limited autonomous authority.  Israel originally came to control the territory known as the West Bank in the Six-Day War (1967).  However, the Six-Day War is a misnomer.  Forces of the Arab League were observed massing in great numbers along the 1949 Armistice Lines, taking an offensive posture.  At that time, there was no Palestinian State.  The *West Bank became sovereign under the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan* when the West Bank Palestinians were given equal representation in the newly formed Jordanian parliament. The newly formed Parliament "unanimously approved a motion to unite the    two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."  In the massing of hostile Arab League forces, poised to attack from every direction (creating an _*Article 2(4), Chapter of the UN Charter*_ • from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence), Israel exercised a military intervention under *Article 51, Chapter VII of the UN Charter* (Right of Self-dense).  While in hot pursuit of enemy forces, Israel became the Occupation Force which was necessary to secure the territory from the further staging of conventional forces. 

Israel did not cross a State of Palestine demarcation.  It crossed a Jordanian demarcation by Armistice.  The Armistice, broken, Israel became the Occupation Force over Jordanian sovereign territory.  In 1988 Jordan "cut all ties" (abandon) and relinquished all claims to the formerly held West Bank territory (_*Disengagement from the West Bank*_). In effect, there territory became "Terra Nullius" • whether it is inhabited by Arab Palestinians whose community is not considered to be a state. In fact, the PLO did not declare Independence for another three months and had no government formed.

I'm not sure that a competent authority has Ruled on the Issue.  There are a hell'av'a some questions to be addressed, before we can understand who/what Palestine is in *A/RES/67/19 Palestine non-member Observer State 4 DEC 2012*.
* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R
•  Anne Orford, Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law © Anne Orford 2003 Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York,
•  John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker.  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law /  -- 3rd ed.  Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, pp. 597-599.
•  James R. Crawford (2007), "The Creation of States in International Law"• Dependent States and Other Dependent Entities', Published to Oxford Scholarship, pp. 25-64.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Demarcation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The demarcation of Israel is self-determined and in most cases under a bilateral agreement between Israel and its adjacent neighboring countries.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> b) *a defined territory*;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to the question you always duck.
> *Where is Israel's defined territory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(DEMARCATION REFERENCES)*
> 
> ◈ _Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel _•​​◈ _Golan Heights Law_ •​​◈ _Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace_ •​​◈ _Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)_ •​​◈ _Lebanese Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon_ •​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See *Posting 631, RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews*.
> See _*Posting 18112 RE:  Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*_
> See *Posting # 78 RE:  Israel's Lies*
> 
> 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.  In the case of the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the applicable international boundaries were established at the conclusion of the 1948 War for Independence.  These boundaries were outlined in the two Treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan _(supra)_.​​*Article 11. *Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty* • **Pg 39 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.​​*Article 11. *Boundary regimes, Law of Treaties* • **Pg 60 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​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.​*
> (Ω)*
> 
> You make this point • "And to the question, you always duck" • regularly.  And each time I respond.  What is it that you think I "duck?"
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Every State has the duty to *refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries* of another State


Like Israel's violation of Palestine's international boundaries in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Demarcation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* The demarcation of Israel is self-determined and in most cases under a bilateral agreement between Israel and its adjacent neighboring countries.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> b) *a defined territory*;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to the question you always duck.
> *Where is Israel's defined territory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(DEMARCATION REFERENCES)*
> 
> ◈ _Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel _•​​◈ _Golan Heights Law_ •​​◈ _Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace_ •​​◈ _Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)_ •​​◈ _Lebanese Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon_ •​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> See *Posting 631, RE:  Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews*.
> See _*Posting 18112 RE:  Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2*_
> See *Posting # 78 RE:  Israel's Lies*
> 
> 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.  In the case of the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the applicable international boundaries were established at the conclusion of the 1948 War for Independence.  These boundaries were outlined in the two Treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan _(supra)_.​​*Article 11. *Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty* • **Pg 39 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.​​*Article 11. *Boundary regimes, Law of Treaties* • **Pg 60 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017*​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.​*
> (Ω)*
> 
> You make this point • "And to the question, you always duck" • regularly.  And each time I respond.  What is it that you think I "duck?"
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> the 1948 War for Independence


Independent from what?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The Debates       
SUBTOPIC: Demarcation
⁜→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

*BLUF:* There was no violation of any boundaries after the Armistice of Mudros and prior to the Arab League invasions.



RoccoR said:


> Every State has the duty to *refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries* of another State





P F Tinmore said:


> Like Israel's violation of Palestine's international boundaries in 1948.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was not in violation of any Palestinian International Boundaries.  There was no such thing.  There were boundaries that were used by the Allied Powers to mark-off the Territories to which the Mandates applied.  Those were international demarcations established between the Allied Powers and not the Arab Palestinians.
* 



*
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)


That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)
> 
> 
> 
> That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## danielpalos

Economic levantas for the Levant!


----------



## rylah

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
Click to expand...


Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.

2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.

See the irony?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
Click to expand...

A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.

The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.

*What were their options?*

They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.

*What were their options?*

Two simple questions.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.
> 
> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> Two simple questions.
Click to expand...


Well, this is your narrative and you reject anything beyond by default.
But why pretend you're interested in anything, when you're not even addressing anything in the conversation in response to the  video you've just posted.

And the apparent controversy  - a diehard BDS-hole (you), posts a link to 2 BDS members appearing on one of the most famous Israeli channels, speaking their mind,
Israelis let them go 2 against 1 and even moderate...

....only now realizes what he sees


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.
> 
> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> Two simple questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is your narrative and you reject anything beyond by default.
> But why pretend you're interested in anything, when you're not even addressing anything in the conversation in response to the  video you've just posted.
> 
> And the apparent controversy  - a diehard BDS-hole (you), posts a link to 2 BDS members appearing on one of the most famous Israeli channels, speaking their mind,
> Israelis let them go 2 against 1 and even moderate...
> 
> ....only now realizes what he sees
Click to expand...

You ducked my last 2 questions. You also ducked me previous question.

Do they teach ducking in Hebrew school?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.
> 
> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> Two simple questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is your narrative and you reject anything beyond by default.
> But why pretend you're interested in anything, when you're not even addressing anything in the conversation in response to the  video you've just posted.
> 
> And the apparent controversy  - a diehard BDS-hole (you), posts a link to 2 BDS members appearing on one of the most famous Israeli channels, speaking their mind,
> Israelis let them go 2 against 1 and even moderate...
> 
> ....only now realizes what he sees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ducked my last 2 questions. You also ducked me previous question.
> 
> Do they teach ducking in Hebrew school?
Click to expand...


No, in Hebrew school they teach that straw man fallacies,
reveals the opponents inability to directly address the opposing argument.

That's why your didn't actually address a thing I've said in response to your video.

You're really pathetic, but let's see again - I dare you, open a thread on this specific question, and look how you will be proven to lie knowingly before the end of 2nd page...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.



Wait, what? What happened to your "stolen land" conspiracy theory?





P F Tinmore said:


> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority


Jews are a minority in Israel?

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.
> 
> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> Two simple questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is your narrative and you reject anything beyond by default.
> But why pretend you're interested in anything, when you're not even addressing anything in the conversation in response to the  video you've just posted.
> 
> And the apparent controversy  - a diehard BDS-hole (you), posts a link to 2 BDS members appearing on one of the most famous Israeli channels, speaking their mind,
> Israelis let them go 2 against 1 and even moderate...
> 
> ....only now realizes what he sees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ducked my last 2 questions. You also ducked me previous question.
> 
> Do they teach ducking in Hebrew school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in Hebrew school they teach that straw man fallacies,
> reveals the opponents inability to directly address the opposing argument.
> 
> That's why your didn't actually address a thing I've said in response to your video.
> 
> You're really pathetic, but let's see again - I dare you, open a thread on this specific question, and look how you will be proven to lie knowingly before the end of 2nd page...
Click to expand...

So, what straw man are you talking about?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there worth debating???  As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change.  So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look we can analyze it from different perspectives.
> Tinmore most probably wouldn't post if he didn't believe BDS members won the debate.
> And I think it is pretty apparent there was only one side totally open and non-manipulative.
> In short, their target audience is way larger than those they think are influenced by this.
> 
> 2 BDS members think they've 'proven this Israeli' for all to see, that their movement can be absolved of being held accountable for racism or double standards against Israel...and of course for that they have to start at the point of rejecting  the words of its formal founder, and the views held by many , if not most members - on an Israeli channel.
> 
> See the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple basic facts will tell you almost everything you need to know about the creation of Israel.
> 
> The Zionists needed a lot of land. After purchasing as much as they could for 50 years, they only owned about 6% of Palestine.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> They wanted an 80% majority Jewish population to create a democratic state. After 50 years of scouring the world for as many Jews as they could find, they still were a 1/3 minority.
> 
> *What were their options?*
> 
> Two simple questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is your narrative and you reject anything beyond by default.
> But why pretend you're interested in anything, when you're not even addressing anything in the conversation in response to the  video you've just posted.
> 
> And the apparent controversy  - a diehard BDS-hole (you), posts a link to 2 BDS members appearing on one of the most famous Israeli channels, speaking their mind,
> Israelis let them go 2 against 1 and even moderate...
> 
> ....only now realizes what he sees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ducked my last 2 questions. You also ducked me previous question.
> 
> Do they teach ducking in Hebrew school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in Hebrew school they teach that straw man fallacies,
> reveals the opponents inability to directly address the opposing argument.
> 
> That's why your didn't actually address a thing I've said in response to your video.
> 
> You're really pathetic, but let's see again - I dare you, open a thread on this specific question, and look how you will be proven to lie knowingly before the end of 2nd page...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what straw man are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Nothing special, a random red herring wrapped in circular argumentation,
which you're not up to challenge to defend in its own thread.

Which begs the question - if this desperate evasion
of what I've just said* in post #310*, confirms the exact weakness in your position?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel Engage Debate: Dr. Jeff Halper vs Rabbi Dov Lipman*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who wins the truce? Israelis and Palestinians count cost of surprise conflict​


----------



## danielpalos

I make a motion for the establishment of a Deylicate of the Levant, to solve the conflicts in historic Palestine on a longitudinal basis.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates  
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→  P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF:  Again, you are intentionally mixing apples and oranges...   There was NO "lie by omission."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)
> 
> 
> 
> That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

After the Palestine Order in Council (10 August 1922) the term "Palestine meant the limits of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  These words of description were short-titled "Palestine."

The Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations, on the 24th day of July, 1922.  It is NOT your simple definition.  And it did not infer a country or nation.

The Mandatory Power explained this, with people like you in mind, when the clarified the intent of the term "Palestine."

Written and filed for the record was _Memorandum "A" • Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate 25 February 1948_, which stated in part:​​ "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."​​This single Memo has become very important to those that claim the Arab Palestinian Territory had boundaries.  The response should be  → NO IT DOES NOT.  Why?  *(RHETORICAL)*.  The Allied Powers, through the Mandate, gave all the governmental authority to Great Britain.  Now, that was not a true fait accompli for the Arab Palestinians.  _*But as told by the Mandatory Power*_: 

"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 Arab Palestinians rejected the proposal but the Jewish representatives accepted.  Similarly, the Arab Higher Committee dispatched the following telegraphic response - received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:

“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”
The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied, is just rediculous.  I am not sure why the UN Membership placates the Arab Palestinians that suggest that the original boundaries set by the French and British Governments was somehow their; but, the it only persist in general confusion.  And the UN Legal Counsel knows this.

EXCERPT: Memom from the Legal Counsel from December 2012:






Prior to December 2012, "Palestine" WAS NOT IDENTIFIED as a State or country."  This is very important.  While the suggestion that the Armistice Boundary of 4 June 1967 is the delimitation to the Palestinian claim as their territory, it is NOT LIKELY.  However, the Arab Palestinians (just) might have and argument to use the lines in place on 4 December 2012 when A/RES/67/19 • The Status of Palestine in the United Nations • was adopted.  The ramifications of that would be very dramatic, especially for the Israeli Settlements in Area "C."  And then, quite possibly some of Jerusalem (established as the Capital in mid-1980).  However, the Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Israel claim on this matter.  And that will probably hold (_*Stare Decisis*_).





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "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 was that? Details?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→  P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Again, you are intentionally mixing apples and oranges...   There was NO "lie by omission."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)
> 
> 
> 
> That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> After the Palestine Order in Council (10 August 1922) the term "Palestine meant the limits of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  These words of description were short-titled "Palestine."
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations, on the 24th day of July, 1922.  It is NOT your simple definition.  And it did not infer a country or nation.
> 
> The Mandatory Power explained this, with people like you in mind, when the clarified the intent of the term "Palestine."
> 
> Written and filed for the record was _Memorandum "A" • Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate 25 February 1948_, which stated in part:​​ "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."​​This single Memo has become very important to those that claim the Arab Palestinian Territory had boundaries.  The response should be  → NO IT DOES NOT.  Why?  *(RHETORICAL)*.  The Allied Powers, through the Mandate, gave all the governmental authority to Great Britain.  Now, that was not a true fait accompli for the Arab Palestinians.  _*But as told by the Mandatory Power*_:
> 
> "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 Arab Palestinians rejected the proposal but the Jewish representatives accepted.  Similarly, the Arab Higher Committee dispatched the following telegraphic response - received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:
> 
> “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”
> The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied, is just rediculous.  I am not sure why the UN Membership placates the Arab Palestinians that suggest that the original boundaries set by the French and British Governments was somehow their; but, the it only persist in general confusion.  And the UN Legal Counsel knows this.
> 
> EXCERPT: Memom from the Legal Counsel from December 2012:
> 
> View attachment 495623
> 
> Prior to December 2012, "Palestine" WAS NOT IDENTIFIED as a State or country."  This is very important.  While the suggestion that the Armistice Boundary of 4 June 1967 is the delimitation to the Palestinian claim as their territory, it is NOT LIKELY.  However, the Arab Palestinians (just) might have and argument to use the lines in place on 4 December 2012 when A/RES/67/19 • The Status of Palestine in the United Nations • was adopted.  The ramifications of that would be very dramatic, especially for the Israeli Settlements in Area "C."  And then, quite possibly some of Jerusalem (established as the Capital in mid-1980).  However, the Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Israel claim on this matter.  And that will probably hold (_*Stare Decisis*_).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity


What does that mean?


RoccoR said:


> The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed."


Changed to whom? The UN ducked out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied,


The Mandate was not a place, it was an administration. It had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied,
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place, it was an administration. It had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.
Click to expand...

What was that?  Your usual sidestepping?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Debates
•  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.

Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."  That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers.  The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine.  The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed.  And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it.  The allied Arabians were much more successful.  The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).

Quit looking for some document.  The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.  

Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.

The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law _(laws for Israelis made by Israelis)_.  Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter _(International Law)_.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Debates
> •  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.
> 
> Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."  That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers.  The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine.  The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed.  And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it.  The allied Arabians were much more successful.  The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).
> 
> Quit looking for some document.  The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.
> 
> Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.
> 
> The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law _(laws for Israelis made by Israelis)_.  Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter _(International Law)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R





RoccoR said:


> Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen.



Are you talking about illegal conquest?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Debates
> •  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.
> 
> Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."  That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers.  The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine.  The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed.  And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it.  The allied Arabians were much more successful.  The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).
> 
> Quit looking for some document.  The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.
> 
> Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.
> 
> The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law _(laws for Israelis made by Israelis)_.  Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter _(International Law)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about illegal conquest?
Click to expand...

Are you not understanding what is presented to you?  <~~~rhetorical BTW


----------



## Hollie

A debate of the live fire kind.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> A debate of the live fire kind.


Ah, the Fatah coup against the Palestinian Authority.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A debate of the live fire kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the Fatah coup against the Palestinian Authority.
Click to expand...

Who won the debate?

People point and laugh at your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

Debate with automatic weapons.


----------



## Hollie

Debate using sharp tools and blunt force trauma.










						Gaza: Palestinians tortured, summarily killed by Hamas forces during 2014 conflict
					

Hamas forces carried out a brutal campaign of abductions, torture and unlawful killings against Palestinians accused of “collaborating” with Israel and others during Israel’s military offensive against Gaza in July and August 2014, according to a new report by Amnesty International. ‘Strangling...




					www.amnesty.org
				




Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty​Published27 May 2015
Share


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​


----------



## Hollie

Debates with guns and Allahu Akbar's


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Debates with guns and Allahu Akbar's


Fatah lost the 2006 elections but refused to step down.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only it isn't a major conflict.
> 
> There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.
> 
> However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.
> 
> Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.
> 
> I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?
Click to expand...

Your marriage


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates  
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

*BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​


*(COMMENT)*

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  

3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates  
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

*BLUF*:  Now you are just grasping at straws.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Nothing in Article V (_PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS)_ is an inalienable right.  And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day.  Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the *principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize*.

In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights* (CESCR) or the  _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR).  I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."


*inalienable rights •* In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. _*There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable;*_ and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​*SOURCE:*​Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​198 Madison Avenue,​New York, New York 10016​





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Now you are just grasping at straws.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing in Article V (_PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS)_ is an inalienable right.  And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day.  Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the *principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize*.
> 
> In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights* (CESCR) or the  _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR).  I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."
> 
> 
> *inalienable rights •* In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. _*There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable;*_ and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​*SOURCE:*​Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​198 Madison Avenue,​New York, New York 10016​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
Jerusalem is in Palestine.
Refugees have the right to return.
Settlements are illegal.
Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
Palestine has had international borders since 1922.

What is there to negotiate?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates  
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

*BLUF*: Well, I question your premise.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.





			
				P F Tinemore said:
			
		

> Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.
> 
> Jerusalem is in Palestine.
> Refugees have the right to return.
> Settlements are illegal.
> Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
> Palestine has had international borders since 1922.
> What is there to negotiate?


*(COMMENT)*

I have serious reservations about your interpretations.

I am not sure where Palestine is, or if something like the State of Palestine has met the criteria of the Montevideo Convention (1933).

YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.  If we take that as a ground truth, then there is place that meets your criteria.  Israel is a reality and it is a sovereign nation.  It cannot be claimed by the Arab Palestinian people.  That is just the plain reality on  the "Question of Palestine."

◈. I am still waiting for the actual "Law" or the "International Convention" that says "Refugees" of any sort have a "Right to Return."  And just who are the "Refugees of which you speak?  Even if you are talking about the displaced people as a result of the Arab Internvetion of 1948 and the War for Independence by Israel,​​​◈  As to the legality of the Settlements in Area "C" → Well, that was a question in 1993, when the DOP (Oslo I) was signed.  And as I pointed out, it was a question deferred by both  the State of Israel and the PLO.​​✦. As agreed upon by the Israelis and the PLO:​​
c. "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.  (*Oslo II • Annex I: Protocol Concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements* • Chapter 2 - Redeployment and Security Arrangements • Article XI LAND)​​​​◈. As to the Question of Borders:  What you call the 1922 Borders is actually "are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  (*Palestine Order in Council 10 August 1922* • Part I - Preliminary • Paragraph 1 - Title). Borders are specifically mentioned in Article V of the *Declaration of Principles (DOP) on Interim Self- Government Arrangements* (1993).​
NOW!  Without regard to what you want to believe, or what you think is true, the Accords were not signed backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

◈.General Assembly A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974:​​✦. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic considers it to be not only perfectly legitimate and natural but also necessary for the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine -- that is, the Palestine Liberation Organization _[PLO] -- _to participate in the discussion of this agenda item.​​✦. The Soviet Union was pleased to note and to accept the decisions taken at the Sixth Arab Summit Conference held at Algiers in November 1973, and at the Second Islamic Conference of Kings and Heads of State and Government held at Lahore in February 1974, recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine.​​✦. In casting a positive vote, my delegation did not consider it necessary to determine whether the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestine people. Its vote is, moreover, without prejudice to New Zealand's attitude to the substance of the item, or to other aspects of the Middle East question, or to the attendance of the PLO at other meetings on other occasions.​​etc, etc, etc...​​◈. Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974:​​2. 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;.​
This position you espouse, that there is nothing to negotiate, is very similar to that actual political position the Arab Palestinian People have taken since the 1995 Accords (_a quarter-century ago)_.  You can see just how successful that strategy has been.

This "behind their back" view point is ridiculous.  It could not have been more open in the way the negations were conducted.   Anyone that claims they did not know about it, simply did not want to know about it.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Now you are just grasping at straws.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Recognition
> ⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*) found in the *Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements* September 13, 1993 (AKA:  Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the _*European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions*_ (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. _ (Not one in nearly three decades!) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing in Article V (_PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS)_ is an inalienable right.  And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day.  Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the *principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize*.
> 
> In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights* (CESCR) or the  _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR).  I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."
> 
> 
> *inalienable rights •* In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. _*There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable;*_ and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​*SOURCE:*​Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​198 Madison Avenue,​New York, New York 10016​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.
> 
> 3.  It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, *including*: Jerusalem, refugees, *settlements*, security arrangements, *borders*, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​
> Jerusalem is in Palestine.
> Refugees have the right to return.
> Settlements are illegal.
> Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
> Palestine has had international borders since 1922.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
Click to expand...

So , all of Jerusalem is in “ Palestine?”   Anyone notice why he never responds to obvious questions such as why the Israelis would agree to eventually over a period of time be annexed to the “ Palestinian State”, have no say in Gov”t or be forbidden to access to their Holy Sites??    
Love to see him saying the same old thing over and over again


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And just who are the "Refugees of which you speak? Even if you are talking about the displaced people as a result of the Arab Internvetion of 1948 and the War for Independence by Israel,
> ​


The refugees were not from the 1948 war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.


The Mandate *for* Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate *for* Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

That's obviously incorrect.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate *for* Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously incorrect.
Click to expand...

 The Mandate for “ Palestine” was 1919. The Balfour Declaration was 1917


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


>


Poor Tinmore ! Keeps repeating the same thing over and over again . Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY??  Lol


----------



## rylah

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Tinmore ! Keeps repeating the same thing over and over again . Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY??  Lol
Click to expand...


Typical Islamist tactic,
first they lie then they think if the lie even serves them.

In his case after 10 years of daily Jihadi propaganda he bragged about a new house,
in the case of the BLM main organizer, she got 3 mansions in just 2 years...

Wonder why all the main Pallywood propagandists,
are either leftist bourgeoisie or Arab oligarchs
and where all that UNRWA money ends up?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.


Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?

Then whose is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?
> 
> Then whose is it?
Click to expand...

Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate. 

Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​


There already is one state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?
> 
> Then whose is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate.
> 
> Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​
> 
> 
> 
> There already is one state.
Click to expand...

Indeed, an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?
> 
> Then whose is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate.
> 
> Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​
> 
> 
> 
> There already is one state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you parrot the 'apartheid'' slogan without understanding terms and definitions.

Indeed, ''an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights", is demonstrably false. Can you post a youtube video to support that claim or do I assume it to be just another false claim?


----------



## rylah

(Comment)

There're WAY MORE people *from the outside* invested in the conflict,
rather than on either sides of those directly involved.

Just look at the posters on this forum - the radicals
are usually the least involved and furthest from the consequences.


----------



## rylah

Pay attention to who's more confrontational,
it's not the people involved...

...but they sure think
they have more say than anyone else.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Pay attention to who's more confrontational,
> it's not the people involved...
> 
> ...but they sure think
> they have more say than anyone else.


I don't see a big problem on the ground. The problem is that the government is fucked up. It has to go or there will never be peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Alan Dershowitz vs. Caroline Glick: To Boo or Not to Boo​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention to who's more confrontational,
> it's not the people involved...
> 
> ...but they sure think
> they have more say than anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a big problem on the ground. The problem is that the government is fucked up. It has to go or there will never be peace.
Click to expand...


Of course you "don't see a problem on the ground",
thousands of miles away on another continent -
 you don't even see the ground.

And yet you think you see "THE PROBLEM",
and act as if you know more than anyone involved.

That is the problem, more than all here on the ground combined,
dishonest people like you, working to fuel both suffering, from the outside.


----------



## rylah

Israeli Arabs: Who do you want as your government? Israel or Palestine?​


----------



## rylah

Zionists and Muslims debate Gaza war​Waleed and Zoubida el Arabia
from Speakers Corner,

debate -

Joseph and Alexandr Menashe
on the Am Yisrael Live podcast.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's  perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> The one thing they all seem to agree,
> is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
> and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
> without arguing anything specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.
> 
> I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.
> 
> I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
> Noura  Erakat, Lamis Deek,  Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.
> 
> Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Still interested in a debate, Who would you want on your side?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Anti-Semitism on the political left​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Noura Erekat, the niece of the PA oligarchs,
boycott of Jews and vile Nazi propaganda is *"fighting antisemitism"*?

Or her supremacist  demand for exclusive Arab domination in the entire middle east,
is a movement that's going to *"liberate the Jews"*???

Classic Al-Jazeera...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



What does it say about the quality of your argument,
when in a panel of one who's not Israeli, against 3 anti-Israel voices,
you still can't directly address anything but to parrot a party-line in unison?

Sums it up neatly, like it's always been -
quality over quantity...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who to stop it? Scramble to prevent all-out war in the Middle East​


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Who to stop it? Scramble to prevent all-out war in the Middle East​



Such silly YouTube melodrama.


----------



## rylah

*Muslim Debates Zionist: Were Jews Oppressed Under Islam?*​They really want to convince Jews
it was better being a minority under Muslim rule...


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

Who controls the media message on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​


----------



## danielpalos

Why so many problems in historic Palestine?

In my opinion, we should ask the UN budget office to come up with Pareto Optimal economic plans for that region.

Economic levantas for the Levant!


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.


GOOD ! Then they have no authority to create borders now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> GOOD ! Then they have no authority to create borders now.


Who is they?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Who is they?


Just referring to your post; the UN


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Debates
SUBTOPIC: _Considering_ threat of force against the territorial integrity
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF:* Nothing said on this topic will change P F Tinmore's mind.  He accepts nothing that favors the Israelis.  He believes that the Arab Palestinians be given territory on demand.



P F Tinmore said:


> They were specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries. They merely divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The UN had no authority to create borders.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, this is not exactly accurate.  The Armistice Lines were an agreement by the Military Commanders on the FEBAs in static placement under a ceasefire, as a matter of the 1948 conflict.

The Armistice (_in this case_) had no political consequence.  The final decision was to be made by representatives of the respective heads of state.



ILOVEISRAEL said:


> GOOD ! Then they have no authority to create borders now.


*(COMMENT)*

There is actually no such thing as a "standing law" that stipulates the "authority to declare a border."  For thousands back to the days of the Pharaohs, borders _(__one national authority on one side and one national authority on the other side__)_ were established and defended by _(__but not limited to__) _new discovery, by force of arms - or - by heads of state [_Accretion, Cession, Prescription (Terra Nullius or withdrawal)_].  While the Ottoman Empire determined its borders by force of arms _(__including Syria in which undefined Palestine was to be found__),_ the Treaty of Lausanne was an agreement by the appropriate heads of state.

None of these options actually describes the situation in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians find themselves.  

The means • "how" • of territorial acquisition should not be confused by the • "who" • what power ultimately assumes sovereign control.



P F Tinmore said:


> Who is they?


*(COMMENT)*

Well, let us clear this up right now...  "Who" ever it was, be rest assured → it was by no means the Arab Palestinians.  The West Bank _(taken by force by Jordan_) and the Gaza Strip (_taken by force by Egypt)_ were at no time Hostile Arab Palestinian criminals have sovereign control of any territory over the entire span of the 20th Century.  Israel did not take the remainder of the territory by force of arms, by rather → protected/defended it by force of arms.  The confrontation in 1967, and further defended in 1973, was an act of national defense.  In both cases, the Arab League Forces massed forces along the border and "threatened" the territorial integrity of Israel.  Both were violations of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter and the latter being a case of coloring outside the lines of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation.

(*COMMENT*)

Now, I can hear our friend P F Tinmore (and company) grinding teeth,  But with the exception of the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the sovereign boundaries along the Israel border with Jordan and Egypt have not changed much since the Peace Treaties were signed a quarter-century ago.  On the other hand, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have not established even one year of peace in the last 30 years.

Does any of the Middle Eastern Neighbors want the Hatile Arab Palestinians running loose in their neighborhood?  Probably not.


Just My Thought,





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Just referring to your post; the UN


Of course that would include the proposed borders of resolution `181.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> He believes that the Arab Palestinians be given territory on demand.


I have never stated that the Palestinians be given any territory. The Palestinians have never asked to be given any territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Well, this is not exactly accurate. The Armistice Lines were an agreement by the Military Commanders on the FEBAs in static placement under a ceasefire, as a matter of the 1948 conflict.


So? They were not borders and therefore did not change Palestine's international borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is actually no such thing as a "standing law" that stipulates the "authority to declare a border." For thousands back to the days of the Pharaohs, borders _(__one national authority on one side and one national authority on the other side__)_ were established and defended by _(__but not limited to__) _new discovery, by force of arms - or - by heads of state [_Accretion, Cession, Prescription (Terra Nullius or withdrawal)_].


So, which method did Israel use to acquire territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The means • "how" • of territorial acquisition should not be confused by the • "who" • what power ultimately assumes sovereign control.


Are you confusing military control with sovereignty again?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In both cases, the Arab League Forces massed forces along the border and "threatened" the territorial integrity of Israel.


What did that have to do with Palestine? It was not involved in those wars.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course that would include the proposed borders of resolution `181.


You mean the Resolution the Arabs declined?
 The Resolution that was supposed to give Israelis access to their Religious Sites?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: _Considering_ threat of force against the territorial integrity
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*: Convoluting the message.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, which method did Israel use to acquire territory?


*(COMMENT)*

In terms of the West Bank, and Jerusalem, sovereignty was abandoned by the Jordanians on 31 July 1988 (_Disengagement from the West Bank_).  It was left in the hands of the Israelis (*terra nullius*), who maintained effective control.

*The Treaty Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
_*Treaty of Peace Arab Republic of Egypt*_
Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of an EU designated terrorist organization​


P F Tinmore said:


> Are you confusing military control with sovereignty again?


*(COMMENT)*

I did not confuse anything.  Israel is sovereign only on territory it claims and defends as sovereign.

For thousands of years, the use of military power to establish sovereign control was a valid means of acquiring territory.  It is still in use today (ie Crimea - South China Sea).



P F Tinmore said:


> I have never stated that the Palestinians be given any territory. The Palestinians have never asked to be given any territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel took no territory from the Arab Palestinian.

*The Arab Palestinians had no identifiable state, nation or country between 1948 and 2012.  Nor could any Palestinian authority be identifiable as a government.*
*(2012- UN Memo on Issue of the use of the name "Palestine" -.pdf)*

It is my opinion that you are not considering the UN Legal Opinion.  You are confusing the Hostile Arab Palestinian demands for some legal standing.



			
				PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) said:
			
		

> The delineation and demarcation of agreed upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. A State of Palestine based on pre June 4th 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital. The Palestinian position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948. The national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern day state of Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, the Palestinian leadership limited the national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of mandate Palestine, seeking a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create and change “facts on the ground,” with constructing the Annexation Wall, building and expanding illegal settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, all in violation of international law.
> SOURCE:  *PLO-NAD*


The Hostile Arab Palestinians are essentially demanding territory that the IDF successfully defended twice (1967 and 1973) and for which the treaties have declared international boundaries.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> What did that have to do with Palestine? It was not involved in those wars.


It was those Countries that successfully annexed E. Jerusalem, the W. Bank and Gaza.  They were not consider “ occupied” Deny it all you want but the Arabs initiated the 67 War


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In terms of the West Bank, and Jerusalem, sovereignty was abandoned by the Jordanians on 31 July 1988


You keep saying that. Jordan failed to annex the West Bank. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> It was those Countries that successfully annexed E. Jerusalem, the W. Bank and Gaza.  They were not consider “ occupied” Deny it all you want but the Arabs initiated the 67 War


Which Arabs?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: _Considering_ threat of force against the territorial integrity
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

It does not matter what YOU believe.  The Arab Palestinians believed it and the Jordan Parliament believed it.  It does not require recognition by you or anyone else.

Israel took effective control away from the Jordanians (not the Palestinians).



P F Tinmore said:


> You keep saying that. Jordan failed to annex the West Bank. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.








_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel took effective control away from the Jordanians (not the Palestinians).


So then, why does the world call it occupied Palestinian territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> You mean the Resolution the Arabs declined?
> The Resolution that was supposed to give Israelis access to their Religious Sites?


Of course they did. The UN had no authority to create a border inside Palestine.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Which Arabs?


There were three Countries but I’ll give you a hint. One of them closed the Straits of Tiran and sent the UN “ peacekeepers” away
   I’m certain that if you think real hard you’ll figure out the other two


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: _Considering_ the Original Intent of A/RES/181 (II)
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*:  Was it ever really under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian Leadership and Government?  (NO!). It was the territory formerly under the Mandate called Palestine.  *Paragraph 1, Palestine Order in Council*.

The territory had been called "Palestine" for so long, that no other name seemed more appropriate.  The Government of Palestine (a UK entity) appeared to be a very appropriate name for the new Administrative Government in 1920.



P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why does the world call it occupied Palestinian territory?


*(COMMENT)*

Even though the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) rejected the establishment of the Arab State, under Part II,* A/RES/181 (II)*, it was optimistically thought that eventually, the Arab Palestinians would secure their carve-out under the recommendation.  No one then actually believed that the Arab Palestinian would reject a cooperative arrangement with the UN and adopt the induction into the Hashemite Kingdom under the "*Unification of the two Banks*."  




			
				Unification of the Two Banks said:
			
		

> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, *constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan* in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> *SOURCE*:  Online Official Government History of Jordan



The *Jericho Conference of 1 December 1948* was the political launch platform for the annexation. The Arab Palestinians from every corner of the territory, some ≈  thousand delegates, voted unanimously to adopt the annexation with Jordan.  At the time of the annexation, Jordan was not yet a signatory to the Geneva Convention.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why does the world call it occupied Palestinian territory?


Colloquial name. 

A geographic area in the Great Satan is called the "Bible Belt'' despite the fact that this area was never invented as a state by the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

BLUF: Now you are just being foolish.  You will not find a single "binding" document by the UN that created any borders on the authority of the UN.  The thrust of your statement is to suggest that the UN created some border arrangements.  It clearly DID NOT.

See*; Posting 393*, in the Thread titled: The Debate.



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they did. The UN had no authority to create a border inside Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Borders are established between sovereign powers; NOT the UN which is NOT a sovereign power.  Everyone knows this.

The current borders relative to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are established by "Treaties."





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Are you confusing military control with sovereignty again?


Are you still confusing Arab occupation with sovereignty?


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> BLUF: Now you are just being foolish.  You will not find a single "binding" document by the UN that created any borders on the authority of the UN.  The thrust of your statement is to suggest that the UN created some border arrangements.  It clearly DID NOT.
> 
> See*; Posting 393*, in the Thread titled: The Debate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Borders are established between sovereign powers; NOT the UN which is NOT a sovereign power.  Everyone knows this.
> 
> The current borders relative to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are established by "Treaties."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


That's problematic because P F Tinmore has already identified that various Israeli treaties with neighboring Arab states don't exist because ''Israeli is not a place".


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they did. The UN had no authority to create a border inside Palestine.


Then Israel doesn’t have to abide by those “ fake borders” now. According to you, any “ agreement” would be null and void


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Was it ever really under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian Leadership and Government? (NO!).


Holy irrelevance, Batman!


> 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;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mideastweb.org



It is the people who have sovereignty not a government or state.

Notice that "government" or "state" are not mentioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> That's problematic because P F Tinmore has already identified that various Israeli treaties with neighboring Arab states don't exist because ''Israeli is not a place".


No. Israel has no authority over Palestine's borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Then Israel doesn’t have to abide by those “ fake borders” now. According to you, any “ agreement” would be null and void


The armistice lines were *specifically not* to be political or territorial boundaries yet there they are on every map of "Israel."


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice lines were *specifically not* to be political or territorial boundaries yet there they are on every map of "Israel."


Holy cut and paste, Batman. How many times has that cut and paste slogan been addressed?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Holy cut and paste, Batman. How many times has that cut and paste slogan been addressed?


Zionists are slow learners.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Holy irrelevance, Batman!
> 
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty not a government or state.
> 
> Notice that "government" or "state" are not mentioned.


Arab occupation does not mean sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Zionists are slow learners.


So... you retreat, as usual.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Arab occupation does not mean sovereignty.


Which Arabs?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> No. Israel has no authority over Palestine's borders.


What borders? The state of Israel has borders (established by treaty), with neighboring Arab States. 

What border has Egypt established with the State of Sinwar'istan?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Which Arabs?


Pick some.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> What borders? The state of Israel has borders (established by treaty), with neighboring Arab States.
> 
> What border has Egypt established with the State of Sinwar'istan?


The Egyptian border was established in 1906.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice lines were *specifically not* to be political or territorial boundaries yet there they are on every map of "Israel."


Then Israel has no moral or legal right to abide by them now. Thank You!
  Keep asking One question which you manage to duck every single time. In the interest of “ peace” please tell us why it’s the Official Position of the PLO that Israel has no rights to their religious sites and why Israel should accept it??


----------



## P F Tinmore

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Then Israel has no moral or legal right to abide by them now. Thank You!
> Keep asking One question which you manage to duck every single time. In the interest of “ peace” please tell us why it’s the Official Position of the PLO that Israel has no rights to their religious sites and why Israel should accept it??


When Israel ceases to be the enemy, things might change


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Egyptian border was established in 1906.


The Egyptian border with Pal'istan? You have insisted that Pal'istan was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> When Israel ceases to be the enemy, things might change


The inventor of Islam made Judaism (and Christianity), ''enemies'' of the politico-religius ideoogy he invented.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> When Israel ceases to be the enemy, things might change


   Non answer to my question. Still doesn’t explain why it’s become their “ Official Policy” or why Israel should just give in to every demand in the hope it “ might” change
  Realistically, Why should the Israelis believe it may be different this time then prior to 1967?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The Egyptian border with Pal'istan? You have insisted that Pal'istan was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924.


And Egypt had an already established international border. That border was honored as a treaty border.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

BLUF: Are you really that foolish?



P F Tinmore said:


> Holy irrelevance, Batman!


*(COMMENT)*

Oh for heaven's sake.  I want to see the Palestinians lay claim to Jordan.  Oh, wait!  The PLO already tested that theory and got kicked out of Jordan.

IF the Israelis or any other country have sovereign control, THEN it is theirs by the Right of Self-Determination.  And they will be determined to keep their sovereign territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is the people who have sovereignty not a government or state.
> 
> Notice that "government" or "state" are not mentioned.


*(COMMENT)*

Reference (Because you need to understand what the words mean that you are using.). I've highlighted in RED the most important passages as it related to my commentary.  The flaw in your absolute statement is given by the example of Saudi Arabia.  The King holds the sovereignty, not the people.  The King is the law and holds all decisions in his hands as a command.

*SELF-DETERMINATION*​The principle of self-determination receives only the briefest mention in the U.N. Charter: see arts. 1(2) and 55. On 14 December 1960 , the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Res. 1514(XV)), which declared: *‘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’: art. 2. Similar assertions appeared in other declarations, e.g., Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 24 October 1970 ( see Friendly Relations Declaration ): General Assembly Res. 2625(XXV).​SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Pg 549 Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
*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]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless. Actually, such efforts appear to minimise unduly the fundamental character of the principle of legal sovereignty within the realm of international law. The rules underlying this principle derive their importance from the basic fact that “almost all international relations are bound up” with the independence of States. Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relations” [ Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 839]’: Schwarzenberger , International Law (3rd ed.), 114–115.​SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Pg 563-564 Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​​*TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY*​territorial integrity      While art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter proscribed the threat or use of force against, inter alia , ‘the territorial integrity . . . of any State’, *no definition is provided as to what constitutes territorial integrity*. Some commentators have pointed to the consequences of the absence of a definition.​SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Pg 596-597 Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​​*TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY*​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’:​SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Pg 598-599 Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
You have to remember - it is not all about the Arab Palestinian.  Every Right that the Arab Palestinians claim is mimicked by the Rights held by the Israelis.  The Rights of the Arab Palestinian do not trump the Rights of the Israeli.







_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> And Egypt had an already established international border. That border was honored as a treaty border.


There are ''honorary treaties'' and ''honorary borders'' recognized by Egypt?

Fascinating.

Can you provide a link to the text of such ''honorary treaty border''? I suppose ''honorary'' would suggest no written document so can you provide some evidence of such an ''honorary treaty border''?

I'm curious because if there is such an ''honary treaty border'' between Egypt and the Palestinians, such a treaty would be void because... you know... Palestinian is not a place.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Hollie said:


> The Egyptian border with Pal'istan? You have insisted that Pal'istan was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924.


Notice he can’t or won’t answer my post above? I think we all know the answer


----------



## Hollie

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Notice he can’t or won’t answer my post above? I think we all know the answer


It's always the same pattern of behavior with P F Tinmore. It will be:
a) sidestep
b) copy and paste a meaningless youtube video, or,
c) add a meaningless emoticon.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Who controls the media message on the Israel-Palestine conflict? | Inside Story​



What does it say about your cause
when even on Al-Jazeerah the closest you'll dare to "debate"
is to round someone with anti-Israel propagandist hoping some bs will stick?

Apparently Israelis have always been a minority,
that our enemies keep arguing on mere numeric advantage,
is because they know they have no chance in a  debate based on facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

A New Approach: The Palestinian Struggle (July 30th Session)- A Jewish Home vs  A Jewish State​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> On 14 December 1960 , the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Res. 1514(XV)), which declared: *‘All peoples have the right to self-determination*; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status...


According to you, the colonial settlers also have the right to self determination. That negates decolonization. So what would be the point?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

rylah said:


> What does it say about your cause
> when even on Al-Jazeerah the closest you'll dare to "debate"
> is to round someone with anti-Israel propagandist hoping some bs will stick?
> 
> Apparently Israelis have always been a minority,
> that our enemies keep arguing on mere numeric advantage,
> is because they know they have no chance in a  debate based on facts.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*: You are just so confused.  There is a difference between "decolonization" and Independence to "Colonial." Countries.



P F Tinmore said:


> According to you, the colonial settlers also have the right to self determination. That negates decolonization. So what would be the point?
> 
> You don't make any sense.


*(COMMENT)

FIRST*

According to C-24, there are no colonial holdings anywhere in the Middle East.  I don't know why you keep bringing up the non-binding *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples* (A/RES/15/1514).  The C-24 Special Committee annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT).  Go read it yourself.  There is no territory in the Middle East even mentioned.  *WHEN* the Special Committee makes that determination, *THEN* let me know.  Otherwise, get a new stick.

*SECOND*

Even *IF* A/RES/15/1514 did apply, it is *NON-BINDING* (It is NOT Law).

*THIRD*

Even *IF *it was Binding, *THAT* doesn't change the fact that:

Paragraph 2 of the Resolution says that:  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.​​*FOURTH*

The *UN Charter* [Article 1(2)] states:  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;

*(Ω´∑)*

It is not according to me...  It is according to the existing contemporary international law.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

P F Tinmore said:


> A New Approach: The Palestinian Struggle (July 30th Session)- A Jewish Home vs  A Jewish State​


Please show us where they speak about “ equal rights” in Gov”t, making sure their Voices are heard and they have some say in addition to having EQUAL RIGHTS to all their religious sites?  The truth is; You can’t


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You are just so confused.  There is a difference between "decolonization" and Independence to "Colonial." Countries.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> FIRST*
> 
> According to C-24, there are no colonial holdings anywhere in the Middle East.  I don't know why you keep bringing up the non-binding *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples* (A/RES/15/1514).  The C-24 Special Committee annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT).  Go read it yourself.  There is no territory in the Middle East even mentioned.  *WHEN* the Special Committee makes that determination, *THEN* let me know.  Otherwise, get a new stick.
> 
> *SECOND*
> 
> Even *IF* A/RES/15/1514 did apply, it is *NON-BINDING* (It is NOT Law).
> 
> *THIRD*
> 
> Even *IF *it was Binding, *THAT* doesn't change the fact that:
> 
> Paragraph 2 of the Resolution says that:  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.​​*FOURTH*
> 
> The *UN Charter* [Article 1(2)] states:  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;
> 
> *(Ω´∑)*
> 
> It is not according to me...  It is according to the existing contemporary international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


You do not understand your own post.

Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post war treaties.

The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality by international law and are citizens of Palestine by domestic law. The Palestinians, and nobody else, are the people of the place.

With this comes the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. Also, no aggression, no conquest, and no annexation.

All of this hinges on one basic principle: No foreigners. No foreign power has the authority to change any of that.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*:  I'm fear you know not what you say.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post war treaties.


*(COMMENT)*

You will find no such reference.  The League of Nations (LoN) never was a party to a treaty.  The Allied Powers wrote the Post-War Treaties.  And the most prominent of those Allied Powers was The British Government.  And it was the Allied powers that did not speak a single word about "Palestine" in the Treaty of Lausanne.

The International Borders of which you speak was the Territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine, which became the Government of Palestine for the Administration of Palestine.  It was a legal Entity and NOT an Independent and Self-Governing Nation.  In fact, the Arab Palestinians were not at all interested in establishing a government in cooperation with The British Government.  Arab Palestinians were granted citizenship under the administrative authority of the British Government.  That ended when the British Administration ended and the territory reverted to a legal entity.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality by international law and are citizens of Palestine by domestic law. The Palestinians, and nobody else, are the people of the place.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians (West of the Jordan) DID NOT acquire a Nationality did not acquire citizenship until the Jordanians annexed the territory.

A representative number of the Arab Palestinians were assembled into the Jordanian Parliament in 1950.  However, that representation ended in 1988 when the Jordanians cut all ties with the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River.

*( ∑ )*

There are a number of Arab Palestinians that are under the impression that a nation was created under Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  That is a false impression.

AND!

If it were any other people, any place else in the world, the Arab Palestinians would not hold the status of Refugees in any form if it were to be judged by any competent authority as citizens of the State of Palestine.

And that would be true to an even greater extent for the straphangers if it any of the Arab Palestinians were to have been covered by another nation (Like Jordan).






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Arab Palestinians were granted citizenship under the administrative authority of the British Government. That ended when the British Administration ended and the territory reverted to a legal entity.


Where does it say that Palestinian citizenship will expire upon the exit of the Mandate?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You do not understand your own post.
> 
> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post war treaties.
> 
> The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality by international law and are citizens of Palestine by domestic law. The Palestinians, and nobody else, are the people of the place.
> 
> With this comes the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. Also, no aggression, no conquest, and no annexation.
> 
> All of this hinges on one basic principle: No foreigners. No foreign power has the authority to change any of that.


You seem to have confused your usual nonsense claim, that the Treaty of Lausanne invented the ''country of Pal'istan'' with a revised nonsense claim that the League of Nations invented the''county of Pal'istan.

It was 1967 when an Egyptian invented ''Pal'istanians'' but he never invented a country with that name.

Why don't you declare the invention of _Pallyland_ as a ''new state'' and move on from there.

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Palestinian citizenship will expire upon the exit of the Mandate?
> 
> Link?


It's in the Treaty of Lausanne. 

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  I'm fear you know not what you say.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You will find no such reference.  The League of Nations (LoN) never was a party to a treaty.  The Allied Powers wrote the Post-War Treaties.  And the most prominent of those Allied Powers was The British Government.  And it was the Allied powers that did not speak a single word about "Palestine" in the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The International Borders of which you speak was the Territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine, which became the Government of Palestine for the Administration of Palestine.  It was a legal Entity and NOT an Independent and Self-Governing Nation.  In fact, the Arab Palestinians were not at all interested in establishing a government in cooperation with The British Government.  Arab Palestinians were granted citizenship under the administrative authority of the British Government.  That ended when the British Administration ended and the territory reverted to a legal entity.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians (West of the Jordan) DID NOT acquire a Nationality did not acquire citizenship until the Jordanians annexed the territory.
> 
> A representative number of the Arab Palestinians were assembled into the Jordanian Parliament in 1950.  However, that representation ended in 1988 when the Jordanians cut all ties with the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River.
> 
> *( ∑ )*
> 
> There are a number of Arab Palestinians that are under the impression that a nation was created under Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  That is a false impression.
> 
> AND!
> 
> If it were any other people, any place else in the world, the Arab Palestinians would not hold the status of Refugees in any form if it were to be judged by any competent authority as citizens of the State of Palestine.
> 
> And that would be true to an even greater extent for the straphangers if it any of the Arab Palestinians were to have been covered by another nation (Like Jordan).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_





> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality by international law and are citizens of Palestine by domestic law. The Palestinians, and nobody else, are the people of the place.



Are you going to answer this or just dance around ?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Are you going to answer this or just dance around ?


Are you going to make any effort to support your claims?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*:  Short Answer is that the Arab League set the conditions.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Palestinian citizenship will expire upon the exit of the Mandate?
> 
> Link?


*(REFERENCE)*
A/AC.21/UK/42.   25 February 1948




*(COMMENT)*

As you can see,  it was envisioned that after the 15th May 1948, the United Nations Palestine Commission would have been the administrator of the Government of Palestine.  That would have meant that the UNPC would Administer the Citizenship Laws as the representative of the Trustee System.  

However, on 15 May 1952, the Arab League invaded the UN Trusteeship and took control of what land of the territory that Israel did not have control.  The Jordanians eventually annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem and the Egyptians set up a Military Governorship in Gaza.  

The UNPC was never able to re-establish the Government of Palestine; the territory being in the hands of the Arab League.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  Short Answer is that the Arab League set the conditions.
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> A/AC.21/UK/42.   25 February 1948
> View attachment 525607
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you can see,  it was envisioned that after the 15th May 1948, the United Nations Palestine Commission would have been the administrator of the Government of Palestine.  That would have meant that the UNPC would Administer the Citizenship Laws as the representative of the Trustee System.
> 
> However, on 15 May 1952, the Arab League invaded the UN Trusteeship and took control of what land of the territory that Israel did not have control.  The Jordanians eventually annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem and the Egyptians set up a Military Governorship in Gaza.
> 
> The UNPC was never able to re-establish the Government of Palestine; the territory being in the hands of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


Where does it say that Palestinian nationality and citizenship expire?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

BLUF:  You simply want it to be true, so badly, that you ignore evee3rything else.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Palestinian nationality and citizenship expire?


*(COMMENT)*

On 15 May 1948, what government were they a citizen of?  There was NO Government of Palestine?  After the ceasefire, who claimed responsibility as citizens?

Think it through.  The UNPC was _sine die_. There was no territory in the hands of the Arab Palestinians.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There was NO Government of Palestine?


You keep saying that. The rights of a people do not require a government.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF*: My original objection was that you were wrong.  → "Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. The League of Nations determined that Palestine was a state according to post war treaties."

*See:   P F Tinmore Posting # 434*​"With this comes the right to self determination without external interference, the* right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity*. Also, no aggression, no conquest, and no annexation."​


P F Tinmore said:


> You keep saying that. The rights of a people do not require a government.



*(COMMENT)*

Now (after several exchanges) we have come *FULL CIRCLE*.  Now you are saying something quite different.  Now you have taken a position counter to the Customary Law and generally understood position:

*ARTICLE 1*
Convention on Rights and Duties of States
Signed at Montevideo on 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.​
The Arab Palestinian, until the Oslo Accords, had no "defined territory" nor did they have a body of people formed into a "recognizable government."  In fact, the UN even had made this observation as late as December  2012.   So, there was no Arab Palestinian self-governing before 1920, after the implementation of the Government of Palestine, before 1948, and after the ceasefire Armistice arrangements of 1949.

While the actions of the State of Israel and the actions taken by the States of the Arab League - do not affect the rights of the Arab Palestinians, it does not imply that there is a duty of one of the governments to give way to Arab Palestinians in their quest for a State.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Now (after several exchanges) we have come *FULL CIRCLE*. Now you are saying something quite different. Now you have taken a position counter to the Customary Law and generally understood position:


Not really. Rights predate governments and states. Governments and states are the products of rights not prerequisites.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Rights predate governments and states. Governments and states are the products of rights not prerequisites.



Is there a _right_ to Arab-Muslim supremacy
over the entire Middle East?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*BLUF:* In an idealized world, I might even agree with this; but this has not been true for more than four millennia and dating back to the time of ancient Sumerians (≈ 4000 years ago).  One of the oldest sets of laws (simple) the *Code of Ur-Nammu*.  The *Code of Hammurabi* is well over 3000 years old.



P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Rights predate governments and states. Governments and states are the products of rights not prerequisites.


*(COMMENT)*

The idea that human rights are inalienable is a relatively new concept as far as the history of man developed.  John Locke (1632–1704) was the first big champion of natural law, liberalism, and inalienable rights.  The contemporary list of Human Rights only dates back a little more than half a century ago; the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR).  And those laws are not universally accepted.  And while the CCPR says:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination." it also says:

_The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations._​ 
Why is it worded that way?  Well, → there are still countries that hold _*Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories*_ under its authority.  

The Arab Palestinians have made a huge mess of the small territory.  The Arab World, and along with a few Allied Powers, contributed to the political uncertainty and political instability in the small territory.  And the Arab Palestinians, as a people, have the Right of Self-Determination.  The "Question of Palestine" is (in part) a question of how they can exercise the Right.  Hell, Mahmoud Abbas is now reigning over the State of Palestine in the 16th year of his four-year term.

Tell me about the Right of Self-Determination.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories,


That is what Britain called Palestine when it was handing it over to the UN.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And the Arab Palestinians, as a people, have the Right of Self-Determination. The "Question of Palestine" is (in part) a question of how they can exercise the Right.


Palestinians have been killed by the thousands trying to assert their rights and getting called terrorists along the way.


----------



## danielpalos

In purely my own opinion, Religious States are no better than Communist States when they cannot bear true witness to their own Constitution or even Ten simple Commandments from God.  How faithful is that?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians have been killed by the thousands trying to assert their rights and getting called terrorists along the way.



Indeed it's because of their terrorist tactics
that they're supposedly killed by "the thousands"
in the midst of the least lethal conflict in the Middle East.

Each time you're given a chance to refute that, you start the Jihadi duck dance...









						How Many Gaza Palestinians Were Killed by Hamas Rockets in May? An Estimate
					

Much of the coverage and commentary surrounding the fighting in May between Hamas and Israel has focused on numbers, especially the much larger number of Palestinians than Israelis killed. The number




					besacenter.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine? | Head to Head​


----------



## watchingfromafar

P F Tinmore said:


> *Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine? | Head to Head*


*You can not be neutral when American tax dollars are being used to support a government that commits the following

The Israeli IDF sniper teams have murdered hundreds of Palestinian children*
https://tinyurl.com/32yekhjk

*Israelis destroy Palestinian homes and murder whoever is inside*
https://tinyurl.com/47s4nm28

*Israelis destroy Palestinian fishing boats cutting off needed food for its people*
https://tinyurl.com/4a8zj84c

*If it was any other country on the face of this planet* we, *the American people* would *NOT *be supporting this rouge country with $$$$ but rather applying sanctions to the toughest extent possible.
If only--?
Just Google *"USS Liberty"


			https://tinyurl.com/2p95rpfy
		

*
-


----------



## Mindful

watchingfromafar said:


> You can not be neutral when American tax dollars are being used to support a government that commits the following



Ever heard of loan guarantees?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Support
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,


watchingfromafar said:


> *You can not be neutral when American tax dollars are being used to support a government that commits the following
> 
> The Israeli IDF sniper teams have murdered hundreds of Palestinian children*
> https://tinyurl.com/32yekhjk


*(COMMENT)*

I would be interested in seeing the Crime Scene Investigation for these "murdered hundreds of Palestinian children."



The Arab-Palestinian Propaganda Machine is overpopulated by drama queens that over-exaggerate allegations of perceived War Crimes.  

The Arab Palestinians generally project the idea that they are always the victim and have no capability; when in fact, they routinely violate Rules 23, 24, and 97 in the Red Cross Database.


watchingfromafar said:


> *Israelis destroy Palestinian homes and murder whoever is inside*
> https://tinyurl.com/47s4nm28


*(COMMENT)*

This claim is evidence of just how unreliable the claims and allegations are.


watchingfromafar said:


> *Israelis destroy Palestinian fishing boats cutting off needed food for its people*
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/4a8zj84c


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is an over-exaggeration of the Blockade activity.


watchingfromafar said:


> *If it was any other country on the face of this planet* we, *the American people* would *NOT *be supporting this rouge country with $$$$ but rather applying sanctions to the toughest extent possible.
> 
> If only--?
> Just Google *"USS Liberty"
> 
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/2p95rpfy
> 
> 
> *


*(COMMENT)*

This event (_involving the USS Liberty)_ took place over a half-century ago under unusual conditions in a time of war.   The Liberty was a SIGINT asset just north of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier in Israeli waters during a conflict between the two countries.  In the US, covert SIGINT platforms are obviously American.  But if you wanted to conduct a clandestine SIGINT mission, sometimes it might be rather convenient (operationally sound) to appear to be an American Ship.  It might be just confusing enough to allow a territorial water penetrator to escape capture.

Rogue Country → what is that?  How does one country defend against the allegation of being a "Rogue State."  What distinctions or characteristics are does a nation have that warrants the allegation of being a "Rogue State" applicable.  Or is this another undefined term?




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Support
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the Crime Scene Investigation for these "murdered hundreds of Palestinian children."
> View attachment 577345
> The Arab-Palestinian Propaganda Machine is overpopulated by drama queens that over-exaggerate allegations of perceived War Crimes.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians generally project the idea that they are always the victim and have no capability; when in fact, they routinely violate Rules 23, 24, and 97 in the Red Cross Database.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This claim is evidence of just how unreliable the claims and allegations are.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is an over-exaggeration of the Blockade activity.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This event (_involving the USS Liberty)_ took place over a half-century ago under unusual conditions in a time of war.   The Liberty was a SIGINT asset just north of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier in Israeli waters during a conflict between the two countries.  In the US, covert SIGINT platforms are obviously American.  But if you wanted to conduct a clandestine SIGINT mission, sometimes it might be rather convenient (operationally sound) to appear to be an American Ship.  It might be just confusing enough to allow a territorial water penetrator to escape capture.
> 
> Rogue Country → what is that?  How does one country defend against the allegation of being a "Rogue State."  What distinctions or characteristics are does a nation have that warrants the allegation of being a "Rogue State" applicable.  Or is this another undefined term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


You're joking, right?

Look at your own chart.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You're joking, right?
> 
> Look at your own chart.


You're only kidding yourself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel/Palestine Policy Debate: Peter Beinart vs. Josh Hammer​

A major flaw in Josh Hammer's argument is that he states that all of the territory between the river and the sea belongs to Israel. He believes that when Israel took over the Mandate for Palestine, it inherited all of the Mandate's territory.

The problem is that the Mandate did not have any territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

DEBATE: Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate #39​


----------



## watchingfromafar

*If you can justify the following then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.*

_*Images for “IDF shooting children”*
It is not God’s faithfulness that is questioned but the faithfulness of Hos chosen. They failed Him & continue to by defying His commandments. 
Murdering children is not God’s way, not way back then and still not God’s way today. 
I don’t have to look way back into the past to find the truth, I can google—
*“IDF shooting children” and this is what I find—*_

AUG 9, 2014 - VIDEO - IDF - SHOOTING ... - Pinterest
Sep 2, 2014 - *Footage released on YouTube clearly shows Israeli soldiers firing live rounds at Palestinian children playing on a roof in Al Khalil, *an area of ...

_Day after day the seemingly incontrovertible evidence of Israel's brutality rolls in. The snippets of videotape bounced around the world by CNN, BBC World News, and Sky TV are nearly always the same: A mob of dark-skinned teenagers armed with rocks pit themselves against phalanxes of faceless soldiers who respond by aiming rifles.
Images for “IDF shooting children”_
_Lights, Camera, Intifada_
*If you can justify the above then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.
-*


----------



## watchingfromafar

I add this------------------
Video emerges of cheering as Israeli sniper shoots Palestinian

Appalling video evidence: IDF snipers shoot Palestinian children for fun
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

RoccoR said:


> On 15 May 1948, what government were they a citizen of? There was NO Government of Palestine? After the ceasefire, who claimed responsibility as citizens?


If you can justify the following then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.




__





						The debates
					

If you can justify the following then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.  Images for “IDF shooting children” It is not God’s faithfulness that is questioned but the faithfulness of Hos chosen. They failed Him & continue to by defying His commandments.  Murdering...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



-


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Support
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,


P F Tinmore said:


> You're joking, right?
> 
> Look at your own chart.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes! I guess you notice that as well. The number of Arab Palestinian deaths is directly proportional to the activities and operations of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters.

But even more importantly, it shows the outcome when the combined Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) locate within or near densely populated areas. This is compounded by the HoAP failure to. remove children under its HoAP control from the vicinity of Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters operations. The HoAP intentionally use protected person and children as a shield to render certain HoAP points, areas, or military forces immune from IDF tactical response to hostile activities. This is the real crime.

All categories of death and destruction visited upon the HoAP was then (is still today) necessary to protect the Israeli civilians, defend the territorial integrity of Israel and the Jewish National Home, or otherwise concerning the public order and health, including the rights and freedoms of all people, caught in the conflict of the HoAP making.

It has already been acknowledged (many times) by various members of the HoAP that they will use prohibited tactics include (using children) to make enhanced video presentations of various deaths and the parade of the dead for media consumption and global dissemination of propaganda material to incite and inflame susceptible audiences, but also to generate more emotional response that instill a negative perception of the Israeli responses. They believe that:

HoAP have an internationally accepted right to armed aggressison against Israel.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) says it is a Human Right to Kill Jewish People.
The PA, PLO, and Fatah inciting and promoting violence against Israeli flag march in Jerusalem.
There are Senior Fatah official supports Hamas rockets “that put Israel in bomb shelters.”
The Hamas TV glorifies jihad, urges 'Death to Israel!'
Each of these demonstrate a widespread or systematic attack by the HoAP against the Israeli civilian population. It is understood that HAMAS and Fatah “policy” and are committed to the promotion and encourages such an attack against a civilian population. YET! You certainly do not see the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor open any investigation on the HoAP. *(RHETORICAL WHY???)*






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> *If you can justify the following then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.*
> 
> _*Images for “IDF shooting children”*
> It is not God’s faithfulness that is questioned but the faithfulness of Hos chosen. They failed Him & continue to by defying His commandments.
> Murdering children is not God’s way, not way back then and still not God’s way today.
> I don’t have to look way back into the past to find the truth, I can google—
> *“IDF shooting children” and this is what I find—*_
> 
> AUG 9, 2014 - VIDEO - IDF - SHOOTING ... - Pinterest
> Sep 2, 2014 - *Footage released on YouTube clearly shows Israeli soldiers firing live rounds at Palestinian children playing on a roof in Al Khalil, *an area of ...
> 
> _Day after day the seemingly incontrovertible evidence of Israel's brutality rolls in. The snippets of videotape bounced around the world by CNN, BBC World News, and Sky TV are nearly always the same: A mob of dark-skinned teenagers armed with rocks pit themselves against phalanxes of faceless soldiers who respond by aiming rifles.
> Images for “IDF shooting children”_
> _Lights, Camera, Intifada_
> *If you can justify the above then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.
> -*








Why would anyone want that hypocrisy on their side?
Besides channeling your bigotry to "God" and Google search,
you also want people to justify it...expecting this is some kind of asset?

What this pathos of your screams of,
is the inability to even remotely debate anything,
and that you will do everything to avoid a sincere conversation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Support
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes! I guess you notice that as well. The number of Arab Palestinian deaths is directly proportional to the activities and operations of the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters.
> 
> But even more importantly, it shows the outcome when the combined Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) locate within or near densely populated areas. This is compounded by the HoAP failure to. remove children under its HoAP control from the vicinity of Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters operations. The HoAP intentionally use protected person and children as a shield to render certain HoAP points, areas, or military forces immune from IDF tactical response to hostile activities. This is the real crime.
> 
> All categories of death and destruction visited upon the HoAP was then (is still today) necessary to protect the Israeli civilians, defend the territorial integrity of Israel and the Jewish National Home, or otherwise concerning the public order and health, including the rights and freedoms of all people, caught in the conflict of the HoAP making.
> 
> It has already been acknowledged (many times) by various members of the HoAP that they will use prohibited tactics include (using children) to make enhanced video presentations of various deaths and the parade of the dead for media consumption and global dissemination of propaganda material to incite and inflame susceptible audiences, but also to generate more emotional response that instill a negative perception of the Israeli responses. They believe that:
> 
> HoAP have an internationally accepted right to armed aggressison against Israel.
> The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) says it is a Human Right to Kill Jewish People.
> The PA, PLO, and Fatah inciting and promoting violence against Israeli flag march in Jerusalem.
> There are Senior Fatah official supports Hamas rockets “that put Israel in bomb shelters.”
> The Hamas TV glorifies jihad, urges 'Death to Israel!'
> Each of these demonstrate a widespread or systematic attack by the HoAP against the Israeli civilian population. It is understood that HAMAS and Fatah “policy” and are committed to the promotion and encourages such an attack against a civilian population. YET! You certainly do not see the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor open any investigation on the HoAP. *(RHETORICAL WHY???)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


Again, look at your own chart. In 2000, 91 Palestinian children were killed. Zero for Israelis. What was Israel "responding" to?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is understood that HAMAS and Fatah “policy” and are committed to the promotion and encourages such an attack against a civilian population.


They are all illegal colonial settlers.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> They are all illegal colonial settlers.


Such silly melodrama.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ watchingfromafar, el al,

*PREFACE*:  It would be absolutely foolish for me to attempt to justify the shooting of children; except in rare circumstances.  But in general, children hold a special place from a moral perspective and special covering under both Customary and International Human Rights Law.

I would be just as foolish to suggest that such an event does not happen.

All that I can ensure you is;  The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) does not have such a “policy to commit such attack” not the protocol for the use of deadly force on children.  The standard practice in the "use of deadly force" with regard to children, is that they are "innocent" even when they are couched mature, authoritative figures.  The following is what I believe their *"intent"* is, in regard to the use of deadly force.

Self-Defense
Serious offenses against persons
Apprehension
To protect oneself or others.



watchingfromafar said:


> If you can justify the following then maybe, just maybe you can convince me to switch to your side.


*(COMMENT)*

This is probably NOT enough to meet your criteria.  And I will tell you that there are exceptions (which I did not mention) that we can reasonably entertain the assumption that children would not be involved.  One such example is the protection of Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices or the involvement in espionage and sabotage.  And even then, it is a protocol that is used "Only As a Last Option (• the "Option of Last Resort.").
​


			
				Elements of Crimes said:
			
		

> “Attack directed against a civilian population” in these context elements is understood to mean a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not constitute a military attack. It is understood that “policy to commit such attack” requires that the State or organization actively promote or encourage such an attack against a civilian population.
> SOURCE:  International Criminal Court (ICC)​


*(COMMENT)*

Again, let me make this as plain as I can.  The Israel Defence Force, the Israeli Intelligence Service, Israeli Security Services, and the Israeli National Police have NO widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population (including children).  

Now, do the Israelis have their share of psychopaths, sociopaths, lunatics, DSM-5 type crazies, and others that will cross the line in the sand without a thought.   In a conflict that dates back to a time before their self-determination and independence before they were occupied and annexed by the Jordanians, or unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, there are bound to be a couple of anecdotal incidents of murder.  But then Washington DC had 187 murders in 2020 alone (the last one being a one-year-old boy.





​
I do not think that I do the topic justice.  I am just not that eloquent.
One child's life lost, is one too many.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## watchingfromafar

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ watchingfromafar, el al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  *It would be absolutely foolish for me to attempt to justify the shooting of children; *except in rare circumstances.  But in general, children hold a special place from a moral perspective and special covering under both Customary and International Human Rights Law.
> 
> *I would be just as foolish to suggest that such an event does not happen.*
> 
> Again, let me make this as plain as I can.  The Israel Defence Force, the Israeli Intelligence Service, Israeli Security Services, and the Israeli National Police have NO widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population (including children).
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


IDF sniper teams shooting children should never happen, no not even once but it does and these acts are what has turned me, once a diehard supporter of Israel to one totally disgusted anti-Israel supporter.
Again,
Googling "IDF shooting children"


			https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
		

-


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> IDF sniper teams shooting children should never happen, no not even once but it does and these acts are what has turned me, once a diehard supporter of Israel to one totally disgusted anti-Israel supporter.
> Again,
> Googling "IDF shooting children"
> 
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
> 
> 
> -


Again, you want to flame the thread with titles such as “IDF shooting children" while not wanting to present any relevant information that might upset your intended narrative. Why not cut and paste some links that identify the intention of the Pallys, that is, to explicitly put children into a war zone the Pallys create?

The border gee-had created by the Pallys a couple of years ago caused them to bus children to that war zone. Is anyone surprised that with thousands of aggressors approaching the border fence and attackers milling around that some well aimed shots by israeli snipers would miss their targets?

Do you approve of intentionally putting children into a war zone you created?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ watchingfromafar, el al,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  It would be absolutely foolish for me to attempt to justify the shooting of children; except in rare circumstances.  But in general, children hold a special place from a moral perspective and special covering under both Customary and International Human Rights Law.
> 
> I would be just as foolish to suggest that such an event does not happen.
> 
> All that I can ensure you is;  The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) does not have such a “policy to commit such attack” not the protocol for the use of deadly force on children.  The standard practice in the "use of deadly force" with regard to children, is that they are "innocent" even when they are couched mature, authoritative figures.  The following is what I believe their *"intent"* is, in regard to the use of deadly force.
> 
> Self-Defense
> Serious offenses against persons
> Apprehension
> To protect oneself or others.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is probably NOT enough to meet your criteria.  And I will tell you that there are exceptions (which I did not mention) that we can reasonably entertain the assumption that children would not be involved.  One such example is the protection of Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices or the involvement in espionage and sabotage.  And even then, it is a protocol that is used "Only As a Last Option (• the "Option of Last Resort.").
> ​​
> ​​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, let me make this as plain as I can.  The Israel Defence Force, the Israeli Intelligence Service, Israeli Security Services, and the Israeli National Police have NO widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population (including children).
> 
> Now, do the Israelis have their share of psychopaths, sociopaths, lunatics, DSM-5 type crazies, and others that will cross the line in the sand without a thought.   In a conflict that dates back to a time before their self-determination and independence before they were occupied and annexed by the Jordanians, or unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, there are bound to be a couple of anecdotal incidents of murder.  But then Washington DC had 187 murders in 2020 alone (the last one being a one-year-old boy.
> 
> View attachment 577475
> 
> ​
> I do not think that I do the topic justice.  I am just not that eloquent.
> One child's life lost, is one too many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


Of course it is being censored.

Gaza Fights For Freedom (2019) | Full Documentary | Directed by Abby Martin​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course it is being censored.
> 
> Gaza Fights For Freedom (2019) | Full Documentary | Directed by Abby Martin​



Ummmm, no.

They’re fighting to fulfill a religious ideology.









						Fatah brainwashes 4th grade girls that Israel's destruction is inevitable | PMW Analysis
					

Fatah: A “firm truth that is not negotiable” is “that Palestine is Arab from its [Jordan] River to its [Mediterranean] Sea, its capital is Jerusalem, and that it will be liberated sooner or later”




					www.palwatch.org
				






*Fatah: A “firm truth that is not negotiable” is “that Palestine is Arab from its [Jordan] River to its [Mediterranean] Sea, its capital is Jerusalem, and that it will be liberated sooner or later”*​


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> IDF sniper teams shooting children should never happen, no not even once but it does and these acts are what has turned me, once a diehard supporter of Israel to one totally disgusted anti-Israel supporter.
> Again,
> Googling "IDF shooting children"
> 
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
> 
> 
> -



So what does an anti-Israeli support,
anything you stand for, any values,
besides fake drama over Israel?

Did your gender really change to flat earth,
 or you just wanna fit the cool gang?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: IDF
※→ watchingfromafar, el al,


watchingfromafar said:


> IDF sniper teams shooting children should never happen, no not even once but it does and these acts are what has turned me, once a diehard supporter of Israel to one totally disgusted anti-Israel supporter.
> Again,
> Googling "IDF shooting children"
> 
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
> 
> 
> -


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I have to respect your decision.  But I have to stay on the realistic side.  Your "Zero Defects" is a good target, but unattainable.

Any program built by man will, at some point in time - fail (Automobiles for example).  The glass half full side of the equation is that it be the least problematic as possible.  No human can perpetually be accident-free.   That simply does not happen in reality.

The death numbers (2000+) sound huge.  They startle the emotions.  Single issue causes are just slivers for the blind idealists to grab and hold onto.  The sliver is a cause, but just one of many causes.

All the best,




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Again, look at your own chart. In 2000, 91 Palestinian children were killed. Zero for Israelis. What was Israel "responding" to?



Why specifically 2000?
There were at least five suicide bombings,
and dozens of Israelis murdered, including Israeli Arabs in other Jihadi attacks.

It's a dumb concept that Islamists expect 
no response before they even the casualties.
It's clearly a losing strategy against a minority.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> They are all illegal colonial settlers.



What is it called, when you murder people
then frame their ethnicity as illegal?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> What is it called, when you murder people
> then frame their ethnicity as illegal?


Has nothing to do with ethnicity.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Has nothing to do with ethnicity.


Was there ever a different response from you,
to murder of members of my ethnicity?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> *Why not cut and paste some links that identify the intention of the Pallys, that is, to explicitly put children into a war zone the Pallys create?*


No need, Google has done it for me
https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
A 100% American company 
-


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Was there ever a different response from you,
> to murder of members of my ethnicity?


What does ethnicity have to do with anything?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Why not cut and paste some links that identify the intention of the Pallys, that is, to explicitly put children into a war zone the Pallys create?


It is not the Palestinian's war zone, The Zionists bring their war zone with them wherever they go.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> What does ethnicity have to do with anything?


Ethnicity is the only consistent factor in your argument for murder.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It is not the Palestinian's war zone, The Zionists bring their war zone with them wherever they go.


Is it the Arab supremacist's
"she wore a shirt skirt" argument...?

No Zionist ever shot a bullet
before the Arab pogroms.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is not the Palestinian's war zone, The Zionists bring their war zone with them wherever they go.


Apparently you weren't paying attention when the Islamic terrorists called to breach the Israeli border and ''tear the hearts out'' of the Jews. That was difficult to miss so it suggests you're taqiyya skills are lacking.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: About Tinyurl.com *Circular Reasoning*
※→ watchingfromafar, el al,

BLUF:  *TINYURL* is a quasi-IT Company.  It is *NOT* a professional news service.  A fragment of TINYURL  piggybacks off the work of other news agencies.



watchingfromafar said:


> No need, Google has done it for me
> https://tinyurl.com/mvszsuay
> A 100% American company


*(COMMENT)*

According to *DNS / WHOIS Lookup* information service:

"This domain (TinyURL.com) has been flagged in at least one database of nefarious web servers. In particular, this domain has been flagged as phishing, spyware.​​Cloudflare *security assessment* status for tinyurl.com: Safe ✅."​
You have to be careful.  TinyURL is a valid source of domain management and internet addressing but has no credibility as a wire service or independent news media.  The information it presents may (in point of fact) come from a totally amateur source or propaganda link.  Twitter and Facebook are not independent news services.  Any can post anything they want, and then on an internet search, it will pop-up.  Even USMB pops up when you do a search for "How many children does the IDF need to murder..." which in turn links you back to TinyURL.  Thus TinyURL uses itself as a corroborating source for its own news story.

Thus, TinyURL uses a USMB member as a source of information, which the USMB member uses TinyURL as a source. 
​​*Circular Reasoning*​
The _*Fallacy of Circular Reasoning*_ occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.​Here is Steven Pinker’s example:​


> Definition: endless loop, n. See loop, endless.
> Definition: loop, endless, n. See endless loop.​



It is easy to get caught-up in these propaganda charades.

Arab (Middle Eastern) wire services have been known to do this between media outlets.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> the Islamic terrorists called to breach the Israeli border


What border?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What border?


The border that the Israelis defend.

Why is it that you folks explicitly bus children to the war zone you created?

The always unanswered question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The border that the Israelis defend.
> 
> Why is it that you folks explicitly bus children to the war zone you created?
> 
> The always unanswered question.


It is Israel's war zone.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is Israel's war zone.


You're not understanding that your islamic terrorist heroes announced their intention to crash the Israeli border, organzed the attacks on Israeli defense forces and later bussed children to the war zone they created?

You can find many youtube videos to support the above.

Are you just playing stupid?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> You're not understanding that your islamic terrorist heroes announced their intention to crash the Israeli border, organzed the attacks on Israeli defense forces and later bussed children to the war zone they created?
> 
> You can find many youtube videos to support the above.
> 
> Are you just playing stupid?


Too late, Israel had  already started its war.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: About War

※→ P F Tinmore, el at,


P F Tinmore said:


> Too late, Israel had  already started its war.


*(COMMENT)*

You are being ridiculous once again.

The conflict between Jordan (_*which covered the West Bank & Jerusalem*_) and Egypt (*covering the Gaza Strip*) came to its ending by Peace Treaty.

The insurgency between the Sole Representative of the Palestinians and Israel almost came to a conclusion with the Oslo Accords.  The PA/PLO President Abbas declares end to agreements with Israel:

President Abbas declares end to agreements with Israel, …​english.wafa.ps/page.aspx?id=XWg2jja117154132029aXWg2jj
RAMALLAH, Tuesday, May 19, 2020 (WAFA) – President Mahmoud Abbas today declared anend to the agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the United States and turned over responsibility over the occupied territories back to Israel. "The Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings …


Palestinian President Abbas Declares End to Agreements ...​


			https://portside.org/.../palestinian-president-abbas-declares-end-agreements-israel-us
		

May 23, 2020 · Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared late Tuesday night an end to “all agreements and understandings” with Israel and the United States, and that his
It is presumed that the response satisfied the court that the Oslo Accords are still active.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,


P F Tinmore said:


> What border?


*(COMMENT)*

I do not believe you understand what a border is...  If you did, you would then know the answer to your question.  







_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Too late, Israel had  already started its war.


What war? This seems to be another pointless, irresponsible claim of yours. 

I find no declaration of war made by the Israeli government.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The conflict between Jordan (_*which covered the West Bank & Jerusalem*_) and Egypt (*covering the Gaza Strip*) came to its ending by Peace Treaty.


So, who lost that war?

Or, what land did Egypt and Jordan lose?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Borders
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not believe you understand what a border is...  If you did, you would then know the answer to your question.
> View attachment 577786
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


Was that treaty written by the US? You know, the country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,



P F Tinmore said:


> Was that treaty written by the US? You know, the country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

The US did not write any Treaty relative to Israel's status with an Arab League Nation (specifically:  ◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace  or ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty )

The US did not illegally give any territory to Israel since Israel established itself under the Right of Self-Determination.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, who lost that war?
> 
> Or, what land did Egypt and Jordan lose?


*(COMMENT)*

Neither party (Israel 'vs' Egypt) (Israel 'vs' Jordan) made a determination pertaining to victory or defeat.  The Treaties brought closer to a conflict that erupted in 1948 in which these three parties were involved.

In 1967 Egpyt no longer had control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan no longer had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
*(JUMPING FORWARD TO THE PRESENT)*

In 2005, the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.

The situation in the West Bank and Jerusalem is somewhat different and complex.  Israel and the sole representative of the Palestinian People.
​(_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"*.​​Article V. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993​*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*​as explained in *Posting #59*.​





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The US did not write any Treaty relative to Israel's status with an Arab League Nation (specifically:  ◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace  or ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty )
> 
> The US did not illegally give any territory to Israel since Israel established itself under the Right of Self-Determination.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Neither party (Israel 'vs' Egypt) (Israel 'vs' Jordan) made a determination pertaining to victory or defeat.  The Treaties brought closer to a conflict that erupted in 1948 in which these three parties were involved.
> 
> In 1967 Egpyt no longer had control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan no longer had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> *(JUMPING FORWARD TO THE PRESENT)*
> 
> In 2005, the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The situation in the West Bank and Jerusalem is somewhat different and complex.  Israel and the sole representative of the Palestinian People.
> ​(_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"*.​​Article V. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993​*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*​as explained in *Posting #59*.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_





RoccoR said:


> Neither party (Israel 'vs' Egypt) (Israel 'vs' Jordan) made a determination pertaining to victory or defeat.


Indeed, this counters Israel's bullshit that the "Arabs" lost that war.

Whenever I mention that, the Israelis start dancing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The US did not write any Treaty relative to Israel's status with an Arab League Nation (specifically:  ◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace  or ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty )
> 
> The US did not illegally give any territory to Israel since Israel established itself under the Right of Self-Determination.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Neither party (Israel 'vs' Egypt) (Israel 'vs' Jordan) made a determination pertaining to victory or defeat.  The Treaties brought closer to a conflict that erupted in 1948 in which these three parties were involved.
> 
> In 1967 Egpyt no longer had control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan no longer had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> *(JUMPING FORWARD TO THE PRESENT)*
> 
> In 2005, the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The situation in the West Bank and Jerusalem is somewhat different and complex.  Israel and the sole representative of the Palestinian People.
> ​(_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"*.​​Article V. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993​*TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS*​as explained in *Posting #59*.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_





RoccoR said:


> The US did not illegally give any territory to Israel since Israel established itself under the Right of Self-Determination.


So, the Right of Self-Determination means you can steal someone else's shit?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, this counters Israel's bullshit that the "Arabs" lost that war.
> 
> Whenever I mention that, the Israelis start dancing.


Indeed. The Arabs-Moslems lost badly, consistently when they waged wars against the Israelis.

Indeed, whenever that's mentioned, the Arabs-Moslems start whining about not losing. The shrill pitch of their whining is unique to the particular war they lost.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> So, the Right of Self-Determination means you can steal someone else's shit?


Arab-Moslem occupation of land does not mean ownership.  

"Stolen slogans" are still just slogans.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Indeed. The Arabs-Moslems lost badly, consistentwhen they waged wars against the Israelis.
> 
> Indeed, whenever that's mentioned, the Arabs-Moslems start whining about not losing. The shrill pitch of their whining is unique to the particular war they lost.


Israel claims that the Arabs, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war (they didn't) that Israel won Palestinian land.

That is an interesting twist of International law. Only Israel's shysters can come up with a story like that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that the Arabs, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war (they didn't) that Israel won Palestinian land.
> 
> That is an interesting twist of International law. Only Israel's shysters can come up with a story like that.


I understand. You want to claim the failed, combined Arab-Moslem assault on the nascent Israeli state, intended to drive the Jews into the sea being a failure and the Arabs-Moslems being repelled was not a loss. 

Call it a strategic retreat humiliating defeat.


----------



## Hollie




----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, this counters Israel's bullshit that the "Arabs" lost that war.
> 
> Whenever I mention that, the Israelis start dancing.


*(COMMENT)*
There are two competing philosophies here:

◈ That a decisive victory on the battlefield determines the outcome (Win or lose).​​◈  That a successful post-War posture establishes a compatible nation with the community of nations.​ 
Now there is always a third possibility that a "third observer" (of an Allied Power 'vs' Opposing Power conflict).  And this "third observer" has sympathetically sided with the Opposing Power.  It is often the case that the "third observer" will continue to support conflict (armed struggle as opposed to Peace settlement).  The "third observe" will not be satisfied until there is the destruction of the other.   In the US we have (I use this only as an example) still fighting the civil war.  And one side will not believe that the reasons for the conflict have been settled.  One post-War aspect wants to remove the "States and Bars" teardown every commemorative statue to CSA Heroic Figures and change the name of every Army Fort named after CSA Person.   They too, will not be satisfied until the other side is wiped away.

There will always be those that hold extremist attitudes.  In the case of the Middle East, Israel and Jordan have closure on the issues.  But the "third observer" has lost all sense of humanity.  The third observer has passed down hatred from generation to generation.  Even children are used as a propaganda prop to incite hatred.  The "third observer" sees the other side as less than human.  And the "third observer" will not be satisfied until they control all the territories from the river to the sea. It creates a paradox:  How do you deal with a nation of psychopaths that refuse to adhere to the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, the Right of Self-Determination means you can steal someone else's shit?


*(COMMENT)*

In order to be the victim of a crime (Theft), the Arab Palestinians had to actually have the territory in their possession.  The Israeli's never took territory in the hands of the Arab Palestinians of the disputed territory.  The West Bank and Jerusalem were occupied by the Arab Legion of Jordan - NOT the Arab Palestinians of the territory.  And the Israelis pursued the Arab Legion across the Jordan River.  It was not until 1988 that the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.

No matter what acreage (within the territories formerly under the Mandate) you believe that the Israelis took from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinian sovereignty, that never happened. 

To the best of my knowledge, Israel never acquired effective control of any territory that was first under the sovereign control and independence of the Arab Palestinians.






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> There are two competing philosophies here:
> 
> ◈ That a decisive victory on the battlefield determines the outcome (Win or lose).​​◈  That a successful post-War posture establishes a compatible nation with the community of nations.​
> Now there is always a third possibility that a "third observer" (of an Allied Power 'vs' Opposing Power conflict).  And this "third observer" has sympathetically sided with the Opposing Power.  It is often the case that the "third observer" will continue to support conflict (armed struggle as opposed to Peace settlement).  The "third observe" will not be satisfied until there is the destruction of the other.   In the US we have (I use this only as an example) still fighting the civil war.  And one side will not believe that the reasons for the conflict have been settled.  One post-War aspect wants to remove the "States and Bars" teardown every commemorative statue to CSA Heroic Figures and change the name of every Army Fort named after CSA Person.   They too, will not be satisfied until the other side is wiped away.
> 
> There will always be those that hold extremist attitudes.  In the case of the Middle East, Israel and Jordan have closure on the issues.  But the "third observer" has lost all sense of humanity.  The third observer has passed down hatred from generation to generation.  Even children are used as a propaganda prop to incite hatred.  The "third observer" sees the other side as less than human.  And the "third observer" will not be satisfied until they control all the territories from the river to the sea. It creates a paradox:  How do you deal with a nation of psychopaths that refuse to adhere to the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In order to be the victim of a crime (Theft), the Arab Palestinians had to actually have the territory in their possession.  The Israeli's never took territory in the hands of the Arab Palestinians of the disputed territory.  The West Bank and Jerusalem were occupied by the Arab Legion of Jordan - NOT the Arab Palestinians of the territory.  And the Israelis pursued the Arab Legion across the Jordan River.  It was not until 1988 that the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> No matter what acreage (within the territories formerly under the Mandate) you believe that the Israelis took from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinian sovereignty, that never happened.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Israel never acquired effective control of any territory that was first under the sovereign control and independence of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


Nice word salad, but where does that address my post?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Nice word salad, but where does that address my post?


Throughout.


----------



## watchingfromafar

RoccoR said:


> _All categories of death and destruction visited upon the HoAP was then (is still today) necessary to protect the Israeli civilians_


No other country on the face of our planet uses its military sniper teams to single out and murder children. Israel is the one and only exception and I pray to God to punish them & if extension is the only solution, then so be it.


RoccoR said:


> _, defend the territorial integrity of Israel and the Jewish National Home_


The land now being unjustly occupied by the Zionists will be removed one way or another.


RoccoR said:


> _or otherwise concerning the public order and health, including the rights and freedoms of all people, caught in the conflict of the HoAP making._


The Jews of Israel can save themselves by welcoming the Palestinians as one of their own with open arms of friendship.
-


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> No other country on the face of our planet uses its military sniper teams to single out and murder children. Israel is the one and only exception and I pray to God to punish them & if extension is the only solution, then so be it.
> 
> The land now being unjustly occupied by the Zionists will be removed one way or another.
> 
> The Jews of Israel can save themselves by welcoming the Palestinians as one of their own with open arms of friendship.
> -



When you pray to God to punish someone else for your abuse of children
for military operations and propaganda, who do you think gets the punishment?


----------



## surada

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> There are two competing philosophies here:
> 
> ◈ That a decisive victory on the battlefield determines the outcome (Win or lose).​​◈  That a successful post-War posture establishes a compatible nation with the community of nations.​
> Now there is always a third possibility that a "third observer" (of an Allied Power 'vs' Opposing Power conflict).  And this "third observer" has sympathetically sided with the Opposing Power.  It is often the case that the "third observer" will continue to support conflict (armed struggle as opposed to Peace settlement).  The "third observe" will not be satisfied until there is the destruction of the other.   In the US we have (I use this only as an example) still fighting the civil war.  And one side will not believe that the reasons for the conflict have been settled.  One post-War aspect wants to remove the "States and Bars" teardown every commemorative statue to CSA Heroic Figures and change the name of every Army Fort named after CSA Person.   They too, will not be satisfied until the other side is wiped away.
> 
> There will always be those that hold extremist attitudes.  In the case of the Middle East, Israel and Jordan have closure on the issues.  But the "third observer" has lost all sense of humanity.  The third observer has passed down hatred from generation to generation.  Even children are used as a propaganda prop to incite hatred.  The "third observer" sees the other side as less than human.  And the "third observer" will not be satisfied until they control all the territories from the river to the sea. It creates a paradox:  How do you deal with a nation of psychopaths that refuse to adhere to the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In order to be the victim of a crime (Theft), the Arab Palestinians had to actually have the territory in their possession.  The Israeli's never took territory in the hands of the Arab Palestinians of the disputed territory.  The West Bank and Jerusalem were occupied by the Arab Legion of Jordan - NOT the Arab Palestinians of the territory.  And the Israelis pursued the Arab Legion across the Jordan River.  It was not until 1988 that the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> No matter what acreage (within the territories formerly under the Mandate) you believe that the Israelis took from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinian sovereignty, that never happened.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Israel never acquired effective control of any territory that was first under the sovereign control and independence of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_



The European Jews destroyed over 300 Arab villages.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that the Arabs, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war (they didn't) that Israel won Palestinian land.
> 
> That is an interesting twist of International law. Only Israel's shysters can come up with a story like that.



Arabs indeed lost big time failing to drive the Israelis into the sea,
and establish exclusive Arab domination over the entire Middle East.

The only reason you must resort to strawman fallacies, because
your narrative holds no water without misrepresenting both positions.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Arabs indeed lost big time failing to drive Jews into the sea,
> and establish their exclusive domination over the entire Middle East.
> 
> The only reason you resort to strawman arguments,
> is because your narrative holds no water against the actual Israeli position.



Families always flee a war zone.


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> Families always flee a war zone.




Arab supremacists much willingly pay
the price for their vile ideology.

They want a "million martyrs",
what is the likely result?


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> The European Jews destroyed over 300 Arab villages.




Historic justice is a wonderful thing, don't you see that?
Arabs really shouldn't have expelled the Jews from all their holy cities.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Historic justice is a wonderful thing,
> Arabs really shouldn't have expelled the Jews from all their holy cities.




When Jews returned to Palestine after the expulsion from Spain and Portugal, there was no upheaval or conflict. What holy cities are you talking about?


----------



## surada

For a long time Jerusalem had a Christian majority from the 5th century to the 11th century.






						Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> When Jews returned to Palestine after the expulsion from Spain and Portugal, there was no upheaval or conflict. What holy cities are you talking about?



When Jews returned after the Spanish inquisition,
the Ottoman Caliphate proposed Rabbi Avraham Aboulafia,
and Dona Gracia to revive Jewish sovereignty from Tiberias in Galilee.

Jerusalem, Hebron, Sefad, and Tiberias are the four Jewish holy cities,
where Arab pogroms took place in the 19th century expelling the Jewish community.

Every attempt to recognize Christians and Jews as equal to Muslims in law - was met with violence.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> When Jews returned after the Spanish inquisition,
> the Ottoman Caliphate also proposed Rabbi Avraham Aboulafia,
> and Dona Gracia to revive Jewish sovereignty from Tiberias in the Galilee.
> 
> But every attempt to recognize Christians and Jews as equal to Muslims in law - was met with violence.



By the 15th century Muslims were the majority... Why would Jews seek sovereignty?






						Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> By the 15th century Muslims were the majority... Why would Jews seek sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Muslims didn't gain the majority by peaceful means.
Sovereignty is the result of taking responsibility for one's duties.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Muslims didn't gain the majority by peaceful means.
> Sovereignty is the result of taking responsibility, to fulfill one's duty.



Having babies is pretty peaceful. Why don't you actually LOOK at the demographics?






						Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> Having babies is pretty peaceful. Why don't you actually LOOK at the demographics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Not when Arab supremacists
_ "Peacefully" _rape several continents
forcing their hegemony on others by sword.

How is your argument different from western imperialism?


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Not when Arab supremacists
> _ "Peacefully" _rape several continents
> to force their hegemony on others by sword.



For the most part Islam was spread by marriage and commerce. The Arabs traded with Egypt, Persia, all of Mesopotamia, Yemen, East Africa, and the Indus Valley long before Islam.. 

Where does your hatred come from? Do you hate Europeans and Russians as well?


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> For the most part Islam was spread by marriage and commerce. The Arabs traded with Egypt, Persia, all of Mesopotamia, Yemen, East Africa, and the Indus Valley long before Islam..
> 
> Where does your hatred come from? Do you hate Europeans and Russians as well?



How is that different from Western imperialism?
Resorting to ad hominems means you can't refute my argument.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> How is that argument different from Western imperialism?
> If you have to attack me personally, means you have nothing to refute what I say.



I didn't attack you personally. I asked you a question. Why do you demonize Arabs? Does it help the Jews?


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Muslims didn't gain the majority by peaceful means.
> Sovereignty is the result of taking responsibility for one's duties.



The problems of the 19th century were because the population of Palestine doubled in 15 years with Europeann refugees. They didn't speak Arabic or share Arab culture. They belittled the people who already lived there and looked down on them.

Imagine if the population of the US doubled in 15 years with foreigners.

Imagine if they forced Americans off the land or destroyed their homes, farms and orchards?


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> I didn't attack you personally. I asked you a question. Why do you demonize Arabs? Does it help the Jews?



Instead of addressing the question about
the difference between Arab supremacy and  Western imperialism,
you rather prefer to frame me for asking, you can't refute the inconvenient fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> There are two competing philosophies here:
> 
> ◈ That a decisive victory on the battlefield determines the outcome (Win or lose).​​◈  That a successful post-War posture establishes a compatible nation with the community of nations.​
> Now there is always a third possibility that a "third observer" (of an Allied Power 'vs' Opposing Power conflict).  And this "third observer" has sympathetically sided with the Opposing Power.  It is often the case that the "third observer" will continue to support conflict (armed struggle as opposed to Peace settlement).  The "third observe" will not be satisfied until there is the destruction of the other.   In the US we have (I use this only as an example) still fighting the civil war.  And one side will not believe that the reasons for the conflict have been settled.  One post-War aspect wants to remove the "States and Bars" teardown every commemorative statue to CSA Heroic Figures and change the name of every Army Fort named after CSA Person.   They too, will not be satisfied until the other side is wiped away.
> 
> There will always be those that hold extremist attitudes.  In the case of the Middle East, Israel and Jordan have closure on the issues.  But the "third observer" has lost all sense of humanity.  The third observer has passed down hatred from generation to generation.  Even children are used as a propaganda prop to incite hatred.  The "third observer" sees the other side as less than human.  And the "third observer" will not be satisfied until they control all the territories from the river to the sea. It creates a paradox:  How do you deal with a nation of psychopaths that refuse to adhere to the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In order to be the victim of a crime (Theft), the Arab Palestinians had to actually have the territory in their possession.  The Israeli's never took territory in the hands of the Arab Palestinians of the disputed territory.  The West Bank and Jerusalem were occupied by the Arab Legion of Jordan - NOT the Arab Palestinians of the territory.  And the Israelis pursued the Arab Legion across the Jordan River.  It was not until 1988 that the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> No matter what acreage (within the territories formerly under the Mandate) you believe that the Israelis took from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinian sovereignty, that never happened.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Israel never acquired effective control of any territory that was first under the sovereign control and independence of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


The question of whether or not the"Arabs" lost the war (they did not) but why does Israel claim that they won territory that was not part of the warring parties.

Also, it is illegal for Israel to retain territory conquered by the threat or use of force.


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> The problems of the 19th century were because the population of Palestine doubled in 15 years with Europeann refugees. They didn't speak Arabic or share Arab culture. They belittled the people who already lived there and looked down on them.
> 
> Imagine if the population of the US doubled in 15 years with foreigners.
> 
> Imagine if they forced Americans off the land or destroyed their homes, farms and orchards?



The Arab supremacists who
impoverished  the land to swamp and disease,
shouldn't have expected to keep forcing their language
in which the name of the land can't even be pronounced.

Imagine, someone rapes your daughter for decades, then claims he's the husband,
but can't even pronounce her name in court, what's the likely punishment?


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Maybe the Arab supremacists who
> flooded the in much greater numbers,
> impoverishing the land to swamp and disease,
> shouldn't have expected to force their language,
> in which the name of the land can't even be pronounced?
> 
> Imagine, someone rapes your daughter,
> then claims he's the parent yet can't even pronounce her name, what's the punishment?




You still haven't looked at the population numbers.






						Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> You still haven't looked at the population numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



I have, they're truly amazing,
don't you see the wonder in historic justice?

At no time, a tiny minority of refugees and former dhimmis,
managed to reverse all odds against the masses of Arab supremacists.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> I have, they're trully amazing,
> don't you see the wonder in historic justice?
> 
> Despite all odds, a tiny minority of refugees and former dhimmis,
> managed to reverse all odds against the masses of Arab supremacists.



Why do you call them Arab Supremacists?
The British Mandate gave the Jews Israel.

By the time of Christ most Jews lived outside of Palestine.. all over the Middle East, North Africa and around the Med Sea... Rome, Aleppo, Alexandria etc.


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> Why do you call them Arab Supremacists?



Because they demand exclusive Arab domination,
over the entire Middle East, at the expense of all involved.
Deeming criminal any compromise to that supremacist ideology.


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> Because they demand exclusive Arab domination,
> over the entire Middle East, at the expense of all involved.
> Deeming criminal any compromise to that supremacist goal.



That's nonsense.. Jews lived all over the Middle East and North Africa until European Zionism..  They left in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.. so it wasn't exactly a mad dash for the border.


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> That's nonsense.. Jews lived all over the Middle East and North Africa until European Zionism..  They left in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.. so it wasn't exactly a mad dash for the border.



Zionism was initiated way earlier in response
to the Arab supremacist pogroms in the Middle East.

Look you might not have the moral courage to face these facts,
but evading them like that even more, suggests you admit to the guilt.

*Arab pogroms and blood libels in the 19th century Middle East. *


----------



## surada

rylah said:


> And Zionism was organized in response
> to the Arab supremacist pogroms in the Middle East.
> 
> Look you might not have the moral courage to face these facts,
> but evading them suggests, even more, that you admit to the guilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damascus affair - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



You mean this from 1840?

Damascus Affair (1840) | Encyclopedia.com


			https://www.encyclopedia.com/.../damascus-affair-1840
		

damascus affair (1840) Blood libel accusation leveled by Christians at the Jews of Damascus . On 5 February 1840 a Capuchin friar named Thomas disappeared from Damascus with his Muslim


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> You mean this from 1840?
> 
> Damascus Affair (1840) | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> 
> https://www.encyclopedia.com/.../damascus-affair-1840
> 
> 
> damascus affair (1840) Blood libel accusation leveled by Christians at the Jews of Damascus . On 5 February 1840 a Capuchin friar named Thomas disappeared from Damascus with his Muslim



Yes, Zionism was initiated in response to such and similar events,
following the Arab pogroms throughout the Caliphate.

Do you know why no Pal-Arab "historian" dares
even remotely address these facts?

Because they admit they
deserve the payback.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,

PREFACE:  Surely you have much more interesting questions to these very simple questions or reservations.  These require or involve little or no mental effort at all.



surada said:


> Why do you demonize Arabs? Does it help the Jews?


*(COMMENT)*

I do not believe that anyone in the discussion group is out on a limb and "demonizing" the Arabs.  No, not at all.  First off, the Israelis are NOT demonizing the Arab population which is not connected with the various anti-Israeli or antisemitic movements.  I think the "evil demons" would consider that association as an insult."  Secondly, about 20% or one-fifth of the population (a significant number) of Israel are Israeli Citizens.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that the Arabs, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war (they didn't) that Israel won Palestinian land.
> 
> That is an interesting twist of International law. Only Israel's shysters can come up with a story like that.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, actually → you are missing the point.  The Treaty of 1994 essentially ended the 1948 War (_*as it pertained to Israeli and Jordan*_).  It was a decisive military victory.  And it is true, that when Jordan lost sovereign control, the West Bank territory fell into the hands of the State of Israel.  So, to say it was a_* "win"*_ in non-political and incorrect terminology → is NOT unreasonable.  It does not convey any falsehoods. And once the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem, all the civil governmental control was effectively passed to Israel from the Jordanians (and again, NOT the Arab Palestinians). 

Politically speaking, to say that "Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war" → in simplified layman's terms, is essentially correct.  But in the correct diplomatic speak would be phrased something like this; some territories (*the West Bank and Jerusalem*) came under the effective control of Israel as a result of a "Decisive Military Victory."  This was finalized by the *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty* 1994 - when the new International Boundaries was established as a matter of record...

Most people just say → Israel won the territorial control of the West Bank and Jerusalem.

But no matter how you phrase it (*call it what you will*) → Israel still has control of Area "C" and Jerusalem. 




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Treaties and Conflicts
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> PREFACE:  Surely you have much more interesting questions to these very simple questions or reservations.  These require or involve little or no mental effort at all.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not believe that anyone in the discussion group is out on a limb and "demonizing" the Arabs.  No, not at all.  First off, the Israelis are NOT demonizing the Arab population which is not connected with the various anti-Israeli or antisemitic movements.  I think the "evil demons" would consider that association as an insult."  Secondly, about 20% or one-fifth of the population (a significant number) of Israel are Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, actually → you are missing the point.  The Treaty of 1994 essentially ended the 1948 War (_*as it pertained to Israeli and Jordan*_).  It was a decisive military victory.  And it is true, that when Jordan lost sovereign control, the West Bank territory fell into the hands of the State of Israel.  So, to say it was a_* "win"*_ in non-political and incorrect terminology → is NOT unreasonable.  It does not convey any falsehoods. And once the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem, all the civil governmental control was effectively passed to Israel from the Jordanians (and again, NOT the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Politically speaking, to say that "Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, lost the 1948 war" → in simplified layman's terms, is essentially correct.  But in the correct diplomatic speak would be phrased something like this; some territories (*the West Bank and Jerusalem*) came under the effective control of Israel as a result of a "Decisive Military Victory."  This was finalized by the *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty* 1994 - when the new International Boundaries was established as a matter of record...
> 
> Most people just say → Israel won the territorial control of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> But no matter how you phrase it (*call it what you will*) → Israel still has control of Area "C" and Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_


It was Palestine then Jordan occupied the West Bank. Then Israel occupied the West Bank. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It was Palestine then Jordan occupied the West Bank. Then Israel occupied the West Bank. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away.


Only occupied are the failing Arab-run autonomies.
And indeed Jordan was not in a position to give Israelis their land.

Remind us, what part of Palestinian territory wasn't titled for Jewish re-constitution?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Only occupied territory is where Arabs run autonomies.
> And indeed Jordan was not in a position to give Israelis their land.
> 
> Remind us, what part of Palestine wasn't titled for Jewish re-constitution?


None of it.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> None of it.


All of it.

Can you find any definition of
Palestinian territory in international law,
that is not titled for Jewish re-constitution?


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> The only reason you must resort to strawman fallacies, because
> your narrative holds no water without misrepresenting both positions.


Speaking of water, the Israelis are running out. 
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> Can you find any definition of
> Palestinian territory in international law,
> that is not titled for Jewish re-constitution?


Ask and you shall receive
_The international recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 in Algiers, Algeria at an extraordinary session in exile of the Palestinian National Council. *The declaration was promptly acknowledged by a range of countries, and by the end of the year, the proclaimed state was recognized by over 78 countries.* As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it. *Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.*_
International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia

*Among the G20, 9 countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey) have recognized Palestine as a state.*
_International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia_
-


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> Ask and you shall receive
> _The international recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed *the establishment of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 in Algiers,*
> 
> International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia_
> -


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Clarification of Intentional Deception by the Arab Palestinians
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,

*PREFACE:*  What we know as a matter of history on the record.
​


			
				KEY Excerpt from Memorandum "A" • LEGAL MEANING OF THE  • TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE said:
			
		

> 25 Feb 1948​*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.​*SOURCE*:  *A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948.  Sir Alexander Cadogan of the United Kingdom Delegation.*​​


​


P F Tinmore said:


> It was Palestine then Jordan occupied the West Bank. Then Israel occupied the West Bank. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away.


*(COMMENT)*



			
				Government Office • Historian  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan said:
			
		

> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> *SOURCE*:  The Office *History*



It seems like I must call this up from the record every few months or so to counter one of your propaganda remarks.

The UN had no authority over this matter and no resolution may interfere with a domestic matter as agreed to by the acceptance of the 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. * Article 2(7) *] 

Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had input into the Jordanian decision to "Annex" the territory.

​


			
				Government Office • Historian  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan said:
			
		

> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the *Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented*. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.​*SOURCE*:  The Office *History*​​


​
This is not in contravention to the accepted Customary International Law of the period.  


			
				Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States said:
			
		

> 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, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
> *SOURCE*:  1-02 Rights and duties of states



Finally, in the 21st Century, the UN made a determination that:





*SOURCE*: Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs United Nations​
Sovereignty is, at the end of the day, about what authority exercises control over the entity. You can cite all the UN resolutions you can find on the subject, but there is one, single authority over the territory. It is that authority that must be recognized with the issue.



			
				Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *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.*
> SOURCE:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed.
> Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.  Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016


The Arab Palestinians have never been the "supreme authority" until the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli authority from the Gaza Strip. And of course, it can be argued that Area "A" is under the sovereign control of the Ramallah Government (at this moment).  So, your statement that "Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away" is unsupported. in other than what has been mentioned.

I find your spreading of misinformation is becoming much more prevalent than in past years.  But I would read this closely.  And when you present your opposing view, cite the authority.  If you counter with - sovereignty is with the people - then show how that nullifies the Parliamentary action f the Arab Palestinian people of the West Bank.  And I would very much like to see what formed government of the Arab Palestinians was exercising supreme authority in whatever territory and when.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## RoccoR

watchingfromafar said:


> Ask and you shall receive
> _The international recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 in Algiers, Algeria at an extraordinary session in exile of the Palestinian National Council. *The declaration was promptly acknowledged by a range of countries, and by the end of the year, the proclaimed state was recognized by over 78 countries.* As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it. *Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.*_
> International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia
> 
> *Among the G20, 9 countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey) have recognized Palestine as a state.*
> _International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia_
> -


*(COMMENT)*

See #545 above.

R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Sovereignty is, at the end of the day, about what authority exercises control over the entity.


You keep confusing Military occupation with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Clarification of Intentional Deception by the Arab Palestinians
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *PREFACE:*  What we know as a matter of history on the record.
> ​​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like I must call this up from the record every few months or so to counter one of your propaganda remarks.
> 
> The UN had no authority over this matter and no resolution may interfere with a domestic matter as agreed to by the acceptance of the 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. * Article 2(7) *]
> 
> Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had input into the Jordanian decision to "Annex" the territory.
> 
> ​​
> This is not in contravention to the accepted Customary International Law of the period.
> 
> 
> Finally, in the 21st Century, the UN made a determination that:
> 
> View attachment 579309
> *SOURCE*: Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs United Nations​
> Sovereignty is, at the end of the day, about what authority exercises control over the entity. You can cite all the UN resolutions you can find on the subject, but there is one, single authority over the territory. It is that authority that must be recognized with the issue.
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have never been the "supreme authority" until the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli authority from the Gaza Strip. And of course, it can be argued that Area "A" is under the sovereign control of the Ramallah Government (at this moment).  So, your statement that "Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away" is unsupported. in other than what has been mentioned.
> 
> I find your spreading of misinformation is becoming much more prevalent than in past years.  But I would read this closely.  And when you present your opposing view, cite the authority.  If you counter with - sovereignty is with the people - then show how that nullifies the Parliamentary action f the Arab Palestinian people of the West Bank.  And I would very much like to see what formed government of the Arab Palestinians was exercising supreme authority in whatever territory and when.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





> 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.*



Indeed, it will be an NSGT (non self governing territory) under foreign control.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Debates
> SUBTOPIC: Clarification of Intentional Deception by the Arab Palestinians
> ※→ P F Tinmore, el at,
> 
> *PREFACE:*  What we know as a matter of history on the record.
> ​​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like I must call this up from the record every few months or so to counter one of your propaganda remarks.
> 
> The UN had no authority over this matter and no resolution may interfere with a domestic matter as agreed to by the acceptance of the 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. * Article 2(7) *]
> 
> Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had input into the Jordanian decision to "Annex" the territory.
> 
> ​​
> This is not in contravention to the accepted Customary International Law of the period.
> 
> 
> Finally, in the 21st Century, the UN made a determination that:
> 
> View attachment 579309
> *SOURCE*: Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs United Nations​
> Sovereignty is, at the end of the day, about what authority exercises control over the entity. You can cite all the UN resolutions you can find on the subject, but there is one, single authority over the territory. It is that authority that must be recognized with the issue.
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have never been the "supreme authority" until the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli authority from the Gaza Strip. And of course, it can be argued that Area "A" is under the sovereign control of the Ramallah Government (at this moment).  So, your statement that "Jordan did not give the West Bank to Israel because it was not theirs to give away" is unsupported. in other than what has been mentioned.
> 
> I find your spreading of misinformation is becoming much more prevalent than in past years.  But I would read this closely.  And when you present your opposing view, cite the authority.  If you counter with - sovereignty is with the people - then show how that nullifies the Parliamentary action f the Arab Palestinian people of the West Bank.  And I would very much like to see what formed government of the Arab Palestinians was exercising supreme authority in whatever territory and when.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_





> 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,*...



Palestine declared independence in 1948 and was recognized by five other states.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Intentionally Misleading
※→ P F Tinmore, el at,



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it will be an NSGT (non self governing territory) under foreign control.


*(COMMENT)*

I do not believe that there is any Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) anywhere in the Middle East.  And that holds true for the Gaza Strip, and Areas A, B, and C.

Every scrap of land in the territory formerly under the Mandate, transition through Trusteeship, and adjacent zones/Cities within the territory is claimed by someone.

There was no land that was seized and taken from the Arab Palestinians.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I do not believe that there is any Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) anywhere in the Middle East.


Britain said it was. Subsequent UN resolutions say it is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There was no land that was seized and taken from the Arab Palestinians.


750,000 Palestinians were kicked out of somewhere in 1948.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Borders
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you going to answer this or just dance around ?


*(COMMENT)*

Well, I don't recall making that exact statement, but there is evidence to support that claim.

The Palestinian Citizenship Law which was the authority under which the British issued Identity Documents and Travel Document, was pure British Law.  And that authority receded as the British withdrew.   After 15 May 1948, the Arab Palestinians that remained came to be under the responsibility of either Israel or one of the Arab League nations which ceased control.  There was no Arab Palestinian Government that had any functional authority other than to make noise.

When, in April 1950, the Jordanians annexed the territory of the West Bank and the ancillary holdings,   Under Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne, the Jordanians assumed the responsibility for citizenship and nationality issues.  The Arab Palestinians became Jordanian Nationals and NOT stateless refugees.

Now today, the Arab Palestinians actually fight for refugee status so they may qualify for the UN handouts.  BUT! Technically, there are no stateless refugees in either the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or Jerusalem.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine declared independence in 1948 and was recognized by five other states.


You’re a bit befuddled. The nascent State of Israel declared independence in 1948. Five Arab nations invaded lands of the former British Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Palestinian Citizenship Law which was the authority under which the British issued Identity Documents and Travel Document, was pure British Law. And that authority receded as the British withdrew.


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> . After 15 May 1948, the Arab Palestinians that remained came to be under the responsibility of either Israel or one of the Arab League nations which ceased control.


After the 1948 war the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty nor can they annex occupied territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The nascent State of Israel declared independence in 1948.


Where was it? Post a link showing its defined territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Five Arab nations invaded lands of the former British Mandate.


The Mandate had no territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate had no territory.


That's correct. That's another of your standard cut and paste slogans. It has nothing to do with my comments.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Where was it? Post a link showing its defined territory.


The forever aggrieved occupier of Ottoman Turk territory. Occupation doesn't mean ownership. 

The Israeli defined territory included the territory defended against the Arab invaders.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Tinmore Circular Logic.
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,

*PREFACE*:  While  our friend "P F Tinmore" demands that the "Opposing View" show this, that, and the others, it does not hold the Arab Palestinians to the same standard.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it will be an NSGT (non self governing territory) under foreign control.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The purpose of *25 FEB 48 Memorandum "A"* (The Legal Meaning of the "Termination of the Mandate") is to explain that given, all things remaining equal, what the political landscape would look like after the withdrawal of the British Mandatory.  The authors of the Memorandum had no Crystal Ball that would guide them on the political outcomes on the landscape → after their control was pulled from the equation.

a.  Your lack of attention to detail and your necessity to make everything sound as if it were falling in favor of the habitual residence, has infected your ability to apply critical political thinking and logic.

b.  And while it is true, that the Mandatories originated from the Allied Powers of Europe, "foreign control" is the incorrect framework to apply to them.  The Mandatory for the territory to which the Mandate applied was assigned by the Principal Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, within such boundaries as may be fixed by these same powers.

c.  The "Rights and Title" to these territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers by treaty.  To the extent to which the term "foreign" should be applied, the "British Mandatory" was no more foreign than the "Arab Palestinian."  Before there were "Arab Palestinians" - the proper nomenclature was: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."

Key Concepts:​​◈    Turkish Subjects  (NOT Palestinians)​◈    Habitual Residents  (NOT Palestinians​◈    The Territory of Palestine  (NOT a self-governing institution by Palestinians)​◈    The Principal Allied Powers selected the British as the Mandatory for Territory of Palestine.  This was approved League of Nations in the form of the "*Palestine Order in Council.*"​
These concepts are important when reading and complying with Articles 5, 8, 9, and 10 of the *Mandate for Palestine*.  In each case, it encompasses the term "foreign or foreigner."  And it did not point to the British Mandatory as a foreign power.





*(COMMENT)*

The general Action is found in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 to the *Citizenship Order in Council.*

The specific Authority is found in Paragraph 4(1c) of Part II of the Order.




*(COMMENT)*

You will not find a single UN Document anywhere that indicates the UN divided anything.  I think you have mistaken the individual Armistice Agreement for some sort of UN Political Sub-Divisions.  They are not.  They are military agreements:

◈ *S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL *24 February 1949 at Rhodes​​◈ *S/1296 23 March 1949 **ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL* 23 March 1949 at Ras En Naqura​​◈ *S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 **ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JORDAN AND ISRAEL* 3 April 1949, at Rhodes​​◈ *S/1353 20 July 1949 **ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA* 20 July 1949 Hill 232, near Mahanayim​ 
The UN can neither establish a new government nor invent a new governing authority beyond the powers of the Trusteeship System.




*(COMMENT)*

Well, the original territories were recommended in Part II Section "B" - Boundaries *A/RES/181 (II)*.  However, there was a forced abrogation when the Arab League Intervened.   This intervention lead to the Armistice Agreements, which in turn was key to the Armistice being broken in the Six-Day War, which in turn led to the Treaties.   In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem, there was the abandonment of 1988 and then the  *Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)* •
agreement on Article 3 - International Boundaries.




*(COMMENT)*

This is a matter of semantics.  You are intentionally misinterpreting the phrase.  OK, let us set the record straight and the Protocol.  Everyone agrees the Mandate is not an acquisition of territory.  The phrase is intended to mean:

Part I
Preliminaries​Title:​1.  This Order may be cited as the "*Palestine Order In Council, 1922*."​2.  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine*.​
I know we all would rather you proceed with your losing argument as opposed to attempting to derail it.  I know we have gone through these very same arguments several times before.  And I know we have established these very same understandings.

All the best in the New Year to Come.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The forever aggrieved occupier of Ottoman Turk territory. Occupation doesn't mean ownership.
> 
> The Israeli defined territory included the territory defended against the Arab invaders.


And the dish ran away with the spoon.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You will not find a single UN Document anywhere that indicates the UN divided anything.


That is true. That is why the armistice lines were not political or territorial boundaries. They did, however, define where the various militaries could and could not  go. These militaries took up the military occupation if their assigned territory.

Since these lines were not borders, they did not change Palestine's international borders.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Tinmore Circular Logic.
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Since these lines were not borders, they did not change Palestine's international borders.


*(COMMENT)*

I agree.  The Armistice Lines did not effect territorial integrity.

The mistake you make is in the terminology:  "Palestine's international borders."

Palestine had the meaning:  "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, *hereinafter described as Palestine"*​Palestine was determined by the Allied Powers, and was a portion of the territories which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers*;​
The proper name for the Arab Palestinians is: former Turkish habitual residents.  However, that name has changed in the evolution of the political framework.

The international boundaries where altered as necessary to meet the needs of Self-Determination.  Today, those are very borders than the boundaries the Allied Powers established in the early 1920s.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The mistake you make is in the terminology: "Palestine's international borders."


That is what they are called by the UN, the Palestinians, and others.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Palestine was determined by the Allied Powers, and was a portion of the territories which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers*;


And they were fixed and applied to Palestine in 1924.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> And the dish ran away with the spoon.



Kindly limit your participation to cutting and pasting YouTube videos.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> And they were fixed and applied to Palestine in 1924.


The Treaty of Lausanne fixed no boundaries and created no imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Perpetuating a fraud is, you know, perpetuating a fraud.


----------



## P F Tinmore

DEBATE: Amer Zahr vs Yishai Fleisher - The Future of Israel-Palestine​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> DEBATE: Amer Zahr vs Yishai Fleisher - The Future of Israel-Palestine​



Why do you think these debates between opposing views,
happen casually on an Israeli channel, while a rarity in the Pali-Arab media?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Why do you think these debates between opposing views,
> happen casually on an Israeli channel, while a rarity in the Pali-Arab media?


We already know all of Israel's BS talking points.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> We already know all of Israel's BS talking points.



Wow what a tough job you have!
They say 3 Jews, 5 opinions, and you know them all...

Maybe Arab supremacists better get their heads out of their bottoms?


----------



## P F Tinmore

DEBATE: Zionist Jew vs. Anti-Zionist Jew w/ Zach Korner & Zach Foster | Round 3!​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> DEBATE: Zionist Jew vs. Anti-Zionist Jew w/ Zach Korner & Zach Foster | Round 3!​



See, that's why Israel is the most vibrant country in the Middle East.
We debate everything, and encouraged to do that form early age. 

Wouldn't it be better for the region, if Arab states allowed
more variety of voices and opinions heard,
at least among themselves?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Isrealis and Palestininas count cost of surprise conflict | The Debate • FRANCE 24 English​


----------



## P F Tinmore

How far will it go? Jerusalem tension spirals into Israel-Gaza escalation​


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Debate is not when you only listen to one position without raising a single critical question.

And apartheid is not a country in which universities give stage to members of foreign NGO's to use their nationalist agenda, to accuse Israelis of racism, demanding another Arab state
at the expense of the only Jewish one in the Levant.

For the sake of debate, if you dare listen to be challenged, 
here are young voices who may contradict your worldview.


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel & Palestine: A National Conflict or a Settler Colonial Project? #palestine #israel #debate​


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Looks Like a Rigged Kangaroo Court
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel & Palestine: A National Conflict or a Settler Colonial Project? #palestine #israel #debate​


*(COMMENT)*

False dilemma // There are more than the two options presented.

This looks like a False Dilemma to introduce a predetermined outcome. There could be, for instance, the possibility that the Arab Palestinians of the *Ramallah government had given permission to allow* settlers to voluntarily enter Area "C" locations.  And the Ramallah Government never mentioned this in the agreed-upon Dispute Resolution process.


(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".






_Most Respectfully,
 R_


----------



## rylah

The Truth behind Al Jazeera | White washing Qatar's crimes | NewsX​
For some context, this is in response to recent clash between
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and India.

Al Jazeera is of course fueling the fires,
inciting against non-Muslims.









						"Narrow-Minded": India's Reply To Islamic Nations' Group Amid Gulf Fury
					

India has rejected comments by a grouping of Muslim nations as "unwarranted" and "narrow-minded" over the huge controversy linked to two spokespersons of the ruling BJP, who were sacked by the party for their remarks on Prophet Muhammad.




					www.ndtv.com
				




What's interesting, during the debate Yana Mir concludes,
that the proper response to the Islamist violence
and ongoing destruction of temples...

...is an alternative alliance - with Israel.


----------



## rylah

Should governments revoke rights of terrorists?​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Should governments revoke rights of terrorists?​


Terrorist = anyone we don't like

It is just bullshit political name calling.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Terrorist = anyone we don't like
> 
> It is just bullshit political name calling.



Except that they were actually discussing crimes
of espionage and murderers in restaurants.

How are such treated in Arab states?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Except that they were actually discussing crimes
> of espionage and murderers in restaurants.
> 
> How are such treated in Arab states?





rylah said:


> Except that they were actually discussing crimes


If they are already crimes, why add another name?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> If they are already crimes, why add another name?



It's like asking if rape is a crime,
because they're listed sex offenders...

Would you consider that a rational excuse to assault women?


----------



## rylah

*Reality check, think this is unusual, look at other Muslim-Hindu "debates"*

3 hours is a lot of time, or how much a serious debate should take
especially when hearing what is actually being discussed here...

For me the challenge was not the length, but to keep sanity
listening to bold promotion of child sex, slavery,
and the universal conversion to Islam.

And if You didn't think this was surreal enough,

the guy literally takes a Piccachu doll

for proof he's not a sadist...

at about 3h 2m.

This is relevant especially in context of Israel and India getting closer,
shared history, and parallels withstanding similar nature of hostility.

The Hindu guy, is 'my people', because though we may have polar
views on much more fundamental issues, our argument is going
to be about the liberty of human thought than dogma.


----------



## rylah

*(QUESTION) *

How much jizyah should Muslims pay, 
when we do Islam to Muslims?


----------



## rylah

Watch: Yishai Fleisher debates far left MK on religious freedom
					

Spokesman for the Jewish community of Hebron, Yishai Fleisher faces off with the Joint Arab List's lone Jewish representative.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------

