All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Natural Citizen, et al,

Yes, there are all kinds of conspiracy theorist on "clandestine" (not covert) collection operations (positive intelligence - not counterintelligence). And (relative to your comment) we can look at just a few of them - the most common ones, and the ones that we can discuss in the open forum. We can, in very broad strokes, divide them up into three groups.

◈ There are those that intentionally plant information (open source) to create rumors to purposely injure US Intelligence capabilities for their own gain.

◈ There are those that are prompted to plant information (open source) to create suspicion on the reliability of otherwise legitimate and valuable intelligence - or - business processes to effect the quality of service.

◈ There are those that are prompted to inject information (open source) to damage the integrity of:

• Commercial processes and economic concerns,

• Political personalities or institutions,

• Impact the risk assessment in the use of certain material and equipment.​

Again, these are categories that are paper thin and thumbnail in their perspective.

(COMMENT)
...scientific and technical research in many key areas....

Many Americans are bothered that Isreal acts as a foreign agent for the United States intelligence agencies, effectively our federal government, against its citizens to violate their civil liberties via technology. Especially in the mobile device department. .

(COMMENT)

The above information is a blend of a couple of approaches that are (interesting to me) that you would mention. They are excellent examples of Gray Source information.

First, it casts a shadow over the concepts on the issue of foreign intelligence services (FIS) liaison, intelligence sharing, and overt collection. For those that don't realize it, there are very few countries that don't employ intelligence service. And it is a rare country that does not take advantage of these processes for their own gain. In this case, you are suggesting that the US openly asks Israel (the FIS) to collect through technical means information that is legally obtainable by the Israelis but illegal for the US Intelligence Community (IC) to collect. That would be very foolish indeed. If the US were to engage in such, that would put IC elements at risk through political coercion (operations Blackmail). As foolish as the IC can be at times, they are not this inept. But this is a good operation for others to implant in the media or into Congress as a means to hamper the working assets of the IC.

Second, it feeds the conspiracy theorist community and creates an atmosphere of mistrust between the IC and the citizen there are pledged to protect.

Third, an example of one of the most insane allegations is the one made here: "They've successfully cracked every apple iphone so our passwords are irrelevant." No Intelligence Service (American, Israeli, Chinese, Russian, German, French, etc) is going to confirm or deny that they have broken any telecommunications or cyber protection. If the did, the targets of the electronic, telecommunications, cyber system or telemetry programs would immediately adopt something else. That is a NO gain scenario.

But (fourth) if some FIS wanted a target to discontinue using a particular brand name telecommunications product, they might inject the suspicion or rumor that the security of the device has been compromised.​

Don't believe everything you hear. Information is planted by the many nefarious activities to achieve some reaction; not necessarily the obvious one.

This week, America has heard much about the Special Councils investigation. What would you say if someone planted the story the one political party started a rumor or planted information for the sole purpose of damaging the reputation and integrity of members of the White House, the family of the President, and to just start various levels of chaos in order to reduce the effectiveness of the President in performing his duties?

TV Shows like NCIS and the FBI (among just a few) demonstrate these very easy access various databases and communications systems or present these elaborate Operations Center that can connect to everything - everywhere, and in a matter of moments track a smartphone. Yeah, and I have the key to the City of New York.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Natural Citizen]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Natural Citizen, et al,

Yes, there are all kinds of conspiracy theorist on "clandestine" (not covert) collection operations (positive intelligence - not counterintelligence).

Well, here's some relevant reading on the topic for the causual passer-by anyhow...


Cellebrite, a Petah Tikva, Israel-based vendor that's become the U.S. government's company of choice when it comes to unlocking mobile devices, is this month telling customers its engineers currently have the ability to get around the security of devices running iOS 11 (right up to 11.2.6). That includes the iPhone X, a model that Forbes has learned was successfully raided for data by the Department for Homeland Security back in November 2017, most likely with Cellebrite technology.


The Israeli firm, a subsidiary of Japan's Sun Corporation, hasn't made any major public announcement about its new iOS capabilities. But Forbes was told by sources (who asked to remain anonymous as they weren't authorized to talk on the matter) that in the last few months the company has developed undisclosed techniques to get into iOS 11 and is advertising them to law enforcement and private forensics folk across the globe. Indeed, the company's literature for its Advanced Unlocking and Extraction Services offering now notes the company can break the security of "Apple iOS devices and operating systems, including iPhone, iPad, iPad mini, iPad Pro and iPod touch, running iOS 5 to iOS 11." Separately, a source in the police forensics community told Forbes he'd been told by Cellebrite it could unlock the iPhone 8. He believed the same was most probably true for the iPhone X, as security across both of Apple's newest devices worked in much the same way.


Continued - The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence -- UPDATED

And that's an old article. :/

Anyne interestd in what's gong on there, start with Cellebrite and search forther. There's a lot of news out there, and hardly conspiracy. As I said, we already have several police agencies in the states who have purchased the devices to bypass security and they use them. All verifiable, of course. Not sure we'd want to be on anyone's contacts list in that scenario if we have any concern for our own due process at all.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As Americans, I think we should start being a little more concerned with our own interests, rather than a foreign agent's interests. Especially when those foreign interests conflict with our own civil liberties at home and are enforced at the barrels of our own government's gun.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

There are a couple of things wrong with this exchange. We either follow the logic in the Rule of Law -- or → we do not.

The Rule of Law (RoL) is not a popularity contest. And you don't disregard the RoL just because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?

(REFERENCES)

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

◈ The state has the right:

✦ To organize itself as it sees fit,

✦ To legislate upon its interests,

✦ Administer its services,

✦ To define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.​

※ Article 10, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What is the primary interest of states?

✦ It is the conservation of peace.

✦ Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

§ The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, (A/RES/25/2625 XXV • Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)​

(COMMENT)

It simply does not matter how it was that the Arab Palestinians the West Bank - constituting 50% of the Jordanian Parliament - came to vote on and accept the "Unification of the Two Banks" - it happened. And by following the incitement to violence models and the propaganda programs, the Arab Palestinian influence into directly controlling the territory formerly under the mandate. While the Arab Palestinians have demonstrated that they can alter the perception of the charger on the border with Israel, they have seen a drop in donor nation contributions. However, Israel need not mount a propaganda campaign for the Arab World to see the effects of the significant advancesments by Israel in their quality of life, economic successes, and scientific and technical research in many key areas. Wheras the Arab Palestinians see nothing of the sort under their Palestinian Leadership. No matter how bad and despicable the Arab Palestinians portray the Israeli Leadership to be, they only need to look at Gaza and Ramallah to see corrupt and inept government.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

 

[Sixties Fan]

After weeks of a campaign focused on various aspects of the party heads, New Right leader Naftali Bennett has pitched a tangible actionable proposal for dealing with a pressing critical national security issue which challenges the current "quiet for quiet" policy - the kick-the-can-down-the-road policy which the leaders of Blue White also embrace.

Under the quiet for quiet policy, Hamas and other military forces in the Gaza Strip can prepare for war against the Jewish State without interference as long as they don't get too "noisy". And even in those instances that they are "noisy" and fire rockets at Israel, Israel's choice of targets in the target bank does not seek to wipe out the enemy's weapons producing capabilities or armories but instead only provide an Israeli "tat" for the enemy "tit" to complete the round of "noise" and return to quiet.

Speaking this week at Maariv's National Security Conference, Bennett described a plan to destroy the weapons factories and armories in the Gaza Strip and then follow up with a policy of destroying any new factories or armories the moment that they are discovered.

Frankly speaking, if that's all Bennett said I would not have been
impressed.

That plan would be empty words if the issue of human shields is ignored.

But Bennett addressed the issue head on.

"Launch first step crushing from the air and clearing the rocket capability of Gaza.

And that means seeking and destroying every missile warehouse and factory.

I don't care if its under a residential building, it's a military base

A house that's a source of fire towards the State of Israel loses its right to be a house.

It's not a residential home. It's a military base."

We have a window of opportunity to implement the plan.

(full article online)

IMRA - Thursday, March 28, 2019 Weekly Commentary: Finally a real election issue - demilitarizing Gaza by force despite human shields

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?​

I didn't see this anywhere in your response.

 

[Sixties Fan]

INTO THE FRAY: Gaza - Disaster foretold

 

[P F Tinmore]

INTO THE FRAY: Gaza - Disaster foretold

A hundred years of war and still clueless.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Falafel for the Soldiers - Boomerang's Weekly Report* (21- 28 March 2019)

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to the article, in a survey in late 2018 with seven Muslim countries who have no relationships with Israel, the percentage of citizens who support relations with Israel were:

Iraq 43%
UAE 42%
Morocco 41%
Iran 34%
Tunisia 32%
Saudi Arabia 23%
Algeria 21%

I'd like to know the details of the survey (if it was on the MFA Facebook page the results would be worthless) but this is definitely interesting, and we'd never have seen these numbers in year past.

(full article online)

Poll shows increasing numbers of Arabs want normalization with Israel ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,​

It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?​

I didn't see this anywhere in your response.

(COMMENT)

You don't have the right to say that "was not theirs." Nor does any other nation, up and until Jordan loses control.

If you look at the very first reference of Posting #7718, you will find your answer:

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

It does not matter one bit what you, or anyone else, says. You don't have the right to force the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank to accept any one particular sovereign control, just because you don't like the default government.. What matters is that:

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. The Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."​

And as you well know, sovereignty is a quality expressed by the people. Your conjecture stems from the argument that Jordan and then Israel enlarged their respective boundaries when they “seized” Palestinian land (first by Jordan during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence against Arab League Aggression, → then Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967).

You contend that the Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented must be discounted because the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the competency or the right to self-determination.

Then you must also content that when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and cut all ties with the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, you are saying that it was not (by default) left in the hands of the Israelis, who were already operating under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Convention.

You are endorsing the idea that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the right to ascend to Jordanian sovereignty and when that sovereignty was unilaterally withdrawn, those abandon obligations did not fall to the Israelis... IF this is true, THEN since the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank DID NOT assume sovereign control of the West Bank and still have not assumed control of the West Bank, that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank might be:

Definition of the term "Stateless Person"

1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.

There was no functioning government maintaining the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip for that matter).

So, If you have an alternative view as to which State assumed responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, on 1 August 1988; pray to tell, enlighten us.

Who (what governmental body or authority) stepped up to the plate - took responsibility - and established control over the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[The Original Tree]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,​

It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?​

I didn't see this anywhere in your response.

(COMMENT)

You don't have the right to say that "was not theirs." Nor does any other nation, up and until Jordan loses control.

If you look at the very first reference of Posting #7718, you will find your answer:

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

It does not matter one bit what you, or anyone else, says. You don't have the right to force the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank to accept any one particular sovereign control, just because you don't like the default government.. What matters is that:

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. The Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."​

And as you well know, sovereignty is a quality expressed by the people. Your conjecture stems from the argument that Jordan and then Israel enlarged their respective boundaries when they “seized” Palestinian land (first by Jordan during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence against Arab League Aggression, → then Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967).

You contend that the Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented must be discounted because the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the competency or the right to self-determination.

Then you must also content that when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and cut all ties with the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, you are saying that it was not (by default) left in the hands of the Israelis, who were already operating under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Convention.

You are endorsing the idea that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the right to ascend to Jordanian sovereignty and when that sovereignty was unilaterally withdrawn, those abandon obligations did not fall to the Israelis... IF this is true, THEN since the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank DID NOT assume sovereign control of the West Bank and still have not assumed control of the West Bank, that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank might be:

Definition of the term "Stateless Person"

1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.

​

There was no functioning government maintaining the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip for that matter).

So, If you have an alternative view as to which State assumed responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, on 1 August 1988; pray to tell, enlighten us.

Who (what governmental body or authority) stepped up to the plate - took responsibility - and established control over the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is Jordan trying to expand it's borders past The East Bank of The Jordan which was defined as Transjordan, the homeland of Palestinian Arabs?

The West Bank has always been Israel's since 1917 in the modern age and since around 3,000 BC in the Ancient Age.

Why then is Jordan trying "to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."?

The West Banks does not belong to Jordan or Transjordan. The River Jordan is the Border between Jordan - Transjordan and Israel with Jordan - Transjordan being on the East Bank, and Israel being on The West Bank.

In fact, one can argue that any so called Palestinian living in the West Bank is an Illegal Squatter.

Why doe Jordan continue to try to encroach upon Israeli land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,​

It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?​

I didn't see this anywhere in your response.

(COMMENT)

You don't have the right to say that "was not theirs." Nor does any other nation, up and until Jordan loses control.

If you look at the very first reference of Posting #7718, you will find your answer:

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

It does not matter one bit what you, or anyone else, says. You don't have the right to force the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank to accept any one particular sovereign control, just because you don't like the default government.. What matters is that:

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. The Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."​

And as you well know, sovereignty is a quality expressed by the people. Your conjecture stems from the argument that Jordan and then Israel enlarged their respective boundaries when they “seized” Palestinian land (first by Jordan during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence against Arab League Aggression, → then Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967).

You contend that the Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented must be discounted because the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the competency or the right to self-determination.

Then you must also content that when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and cut all ties with the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, you are saying that it was not (by default) left in the hands of the Israelis, who were already operating under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Convention.

You are endorsing the idea that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the right to ascend to Jordanian sovereignty and when that sovereignty was unilaterally withdrawn, those abandon obligations did not fall to the Israelis... IF this is true, THEN since the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank DID NOT assume sovereign control of the West Bank and still have not assumed control of the West Bank, that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank might be:

Definition of the term "Stateless Person"

1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.

There was no functioning government maintaining the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip for that matter).

So, If you have an alternative view as to which State assumed responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, on 1 August 1988; pray to tell, enlighten us.

Who (what governmental body or authority) stepped up to the plate - took responsibility - and established control over the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,
It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

Indeed, occupation.

 

[The Original Tree]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,​

It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?​

I didn't see this anywhere in your response.

(COMMENT)

You don't have the right to say that "was not theirs." Nor does any other nation, up and until Jordan loses control.

If you look at the very first reference of Posting #7718, you will find your answer:

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

It does not matter one bit what you, or anyone else, says. You don't have the right to force the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank to accept any one particular sovereign control, just because you don't like the default government.. What matters is that:

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. The Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."​

And as you well know, sovereignty is a quality expressed by the people. Your conjecture stems from the argument that Jordan and then Israel enlarged their respective boundaries when they “seized” Palestinian land (first by Jordan during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence against Arab League Aggression, → then Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967).

You contend that the Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented must be discounted because the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the competency or the right to self-determination.

Then you must also content that when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and cut all ties with the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, you are saying that it was not (by default) left in the hands of the Israelis, who were already operating under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Convention.

You are endorsing the idea that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank did not have the right to ascend to Jordanian sovereignty and when that sovereignty was unilaterally withdrawn, those abandon obligations did not fall to the Israelis... IF this is true, THEN since the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank DID NOT assume sovereign control of the West Bank and still have not assumed control of the West Bank, that the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank might be:

Definition of the term "Stateless Person"

1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.

There was no functioning government maintaining the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip for that matter).

So, If you have an alternative view as to which State assumed responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank, on 1 August 1988; pray to tell, enlighten us.

Who (what governmental body or authority) stepped up to the plate - took responsibility - and established control over the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

Whether you want to say:

• They lost Sovereign Control,
.........................or
• They lost the military struggle for,
.........................or
• They lost effective control of,
.........................or
• They had to abandon the defense of,
It is all effectively amounts to the same outcome.

Indeed, occupation.

Jordan is indeed squatting on Israel Territory on The West Bank, so I agree, that is occupation. Why don't they go back to their homeland on The East Bank?

 

[Shusha]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

Then make your point.

WOW, Rocco, you posted all of that and missed the point of my post.

(COMMENT)

You are always saying I missed something, but seldom give a clue as to what was missed.

v/r
R

He has an 8-sided die which he rolls when he can't figure out a reasoned response:

Indeed
Link?
How does that refute my post?
Israeli talking point
You missed my point
Its true. Look it up.
You played the terrorist card again.
Dancing men

 

[Hollie]

The new year started off so well for those angry, embittered, tribal psychopaths from rival mini-caliphates.

It didn’t work out, though.




Palestinian Authority removes staff from Gaza-Egypt crossing

Palestinian Authority leaves Gaza crossing

A statement accused the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, of harassing and detaining PA employees.

Hamas said the move amounted to "additional sanctions" on the people of Gaza by the West Bank-based PA.

 

[Sixties Fan]

"There has never been a country called Palestine," said Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Eastern Regional Vice President of the CJV. "Jews have been connected to the land of Israel continuously for 37 centuries. Find a 'Palestinian' writer from the 6th, 16th or 19th Century, and you will find a Jew. In 1948, the Palestine Post became the Jerusalem Post. 'Palestinian Arabs' are a late 20th-century creation, concocted for the sole purpose of thwarting the national state of the Jewish people."

Rabbi Dov Fischer, Rabbi Pruzansky's Western Regional counterpart, added that "when Ahmed Shukairy launched the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization -ed.) in 1964, the 'Palestine' he sought to 'liberate' was Tel Aviv and Haifa. It was a ploy -- they used the name Palestine because it was too ridiculous to call for the 'liberation' of Judea from Jews."

The CJV further noted that although what was called "Palestine" under the British Mandate includes all of modern-day Jordan, the "Palestine" described by the Palestinian Authority, left-wing groups and terror organizations traces only the borders of Israel's portion. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas described Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs as "one people living in two states" during a speech in 2015, expressly refuting the notion of a "Palestinian" people separate from Jordanians. Jordan is four times the size of Israel, with a population only 10% larger.

"The name Palestine was coined by Greek and Roman colonialists anxious to disenfranchise the natives," Rabbi Yaakov Menken, Managing Director of the CJV, observed, "and that has been its meaning and intent ever since. It is no coincidence that this came up during a discussion of the classic anti-Semitic falsehoods expressed by Rep. Ilhan Omar."

(full article online)

Rabbis demand Sarsour apologize for 'anti-Semitic narrative'

 

[P F Tinmore]

"There has never been a country called Palestine," said Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Eastern Regional Vice President of the CJV. "Jews have been connected to the land of Israel continuously for 37 centuries. Find a 'Palestinian' writer from the 6th, 16th or 19th Century, and you will find a Jew. In 1948, the Palestine Post became the Jerusalem Post. 'Palestinian Arabs' are a late 20th-century creation, concocted for the sole purpose of thwarting the national state of the Jewish people."

Rabbi Dov Fischer, Rabbi Pruzansky's Western Regional counterpart, added that "when Ahmed Shukairy launched the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization -ed.) in 1964, the 'Palestine' he sought to 'liberate' was Tel Aviv and Haifa. It was a ploy -- they used the name Palestine because it was too ridiculous to call for the 'liberation' of Judea from Jews."

The CJV further noted that although what was called "Palestine" under the British Mandate includes all of modern-day Jordan, the "Palestine" described by the Palestinian Authority, left-wing groups and terror organizations traces only the borders of Israel's portion. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas described Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs as "one people living in two states" during a speech in 2015, expressly refuting the notion of a "Palestinian" people separate from Jordanians. Jordan is four times the size of Israel, with a population only 10% larger.

"The name Palestine was coined by Greek and Roman colonialists anxious to disenfranchise the natives," Rabbi Yaakov Menken, Managing Director of the CJV, observed, "and that has been its meaning and intent ever since. It is no coincidence that this came up during a discussion of the classic anti-Semitic falsehoods expressed by Rep. Ilhan Omar."

(full article online)

Rabbis demand Sarsour apologize for 'anti-Semitic narrative'

Now all this ass has to do is convince millions of Palestinians that Palestine does not exist.

Good luck with that.

BTW, what did Linda Sarsour say that was anti Semitic?

 

[rylah]

BTW, what did Linda Sarsour say that was anti Semitic?

Aside from promoting Sharia?

That there's nothing "creepier" than Jewish self determination,
that Jew-hatred is not a serious problem and not systemic,
and that Americans opposing the destruction of Israel are being disloyal.