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

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are making this more difficult than it needs to be. The simple fact is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to use violent activities to induce the State of Israel to capitulate to the demands of they make.

OK, but if nobody has been attacked, why would anyone consider it?

(COMMENT)

When you make political demands of a government under the threat of violence, and you commit a violent act as a means of intimidation or coercion in an effort to secure that demand, it becomes an act of terrorism. (The distinction between Domestic or International terrorism is a matter of distinct boundaries. It does not change the fact that it is terrorism.)

If a hostile entity of any persuasion has an established pattern of criminal behaviors or a history of perpetrating violent crimes or extremist action, you better take them at their word. The first time you don't and they take action (or even the appearance of an action), the outcomes could be catastrophic. This is especially true when the perpetrator has a relationship with outlets that by designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of of serious criminal action.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that the Palestinians do not have the right to self defense?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are making this more difficult than it needs to be. The simple fact is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to use violent activities to induce the State of Israel to capitulate to the demands of they make.

OK, but if nobody has been attacked, why would anyone consider it?

(COMMENT)

When you make political demands of a government under the threat of violence, and you commit a violent act as a means of intimidation or coercion in an effort to secure that demand, it becomes an act of terrorism. (The distinction between Domestic or International terrorism is a matter of distinct boundaries. It does not change the fact that it is terrorism.)

If a hostile entity of any persuasion has an established pattern of criminal behaviors or a history of perpetrating violent crimes or extremist action, you better take them at their word. The first time you don't and they take action (or even the appearance of an action), the outcomes could be catastrophic. This is especially true when the perpetrator has a relationship with outlets that by designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of of serious criminal action.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking the question.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are making this more difficult than it needs to be. The simple fact is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to use violent activities to induce the State of Israel to capitulate to the demands of they make.

OK, but if nobody has been attacked, why would anyone consider it?

(COMMENT)

When you make political demands of a government under the threat of violence, and you commit a violent act as a means of intimidation or coercion in an effort to secure that demand, it becomes an act of terrorism. (The distinction between Domestic or International terrorism is a matter of distinct boundaries. It does not change the fact that it is terrorism.)

If a hostile entity of any persuasion has an established pattern of criminal behaviors or a history of perpetrating violent crimes or extremist action, you better take them at their word. The first time you don't and they take action (or even the appearance of an action), the outcomes could be catastrophic. This is especially true when the perpetrator has a relationship with outlets that by designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of of serious criminal action.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that the Palestinians do not have the right to self defense?

Acts of Islamic terrorism aimed at Israelis citizens are not self defense.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: In terms of the International Agreement, self-defense is covered in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Are you saying that the Palestinians do not have the right to self defense?

(COMMENT)

Just where in the hell did you get that.

Again, you are twisting the commentary for your own purpose, but not for the truth. Posting 8980 did not even address "self-defense" either on the individual level or on an international level.

However, the Arab Palestinians cannot use conflict as a means to settle disputes. Your entire dialog has been about some way that the Arab Palestinians can justify the use of violence (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). You want to justify the conflict. You want to ignore the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

You can not use "self-defense" as a means to justify terrorism against the Occupying Power (Israelis).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WATCH - Arab ramming and stabbing attack in East Jerusalem

A terrorist attack was reported east of Jerusalem yesterday morning. The attack was a combination ramming and stabbing attack, with an explosive device found at the scene of the attack.

The incident occurred in the Maale Adumim area, just east of the Jerusalem when a vehicle rammed a Border Police officer at the checkpoint. A terrorist then exited the vehicle and stabbed the officer with a pair of scissors.

The officer is said to be in moderate condition. The terrorist was shot and killed at the scene.

The Palestinian Authority later identified the terrorist as 25-year-old Ibrahim Halaseh, a resident of the PA-controled town of Sawahera.

Thank G-d the officer is doing alright!

Attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism.

What dumbfuck wrote this piece?

Attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism.

What country are the "foreign troops" from?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WATCH - Arab ramming and stabbing attack in East Jerusalem

A terrorist attack was reported east of Jerusalem yesterday morning. The attack was a combination ramming and stabbing attack, with an explosive device found at the scene of the attack.

The incident occurred in the Maale Adumim area, just east of the Jerusalem when a vehicle rammed a Border Police officer at the checkpoint. A terrorist then exited the vehicle and stabbed the officer with a pair of scissors.

The officer is said to be in moderate condition. The terrorist was shot and killed at the scene.

The Palestinian Authority later identified the terrorist as 25-year-old Ibrahim Halaseh, a resident of the PA-controled town of Sawahera.

Thank G-d the officer is doing alright!

Attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism.

What dumbfuck wrote this piece?

Who cares what you define it.

What's important is the result - one dead Jihadi at a checkpoint,
and not inside any residential area. This is what's really important.

G-d bless the young IDF soldiers who stand to defend Israel.

G-d bless the young IDF soldiers

IDF = Israeli doofus force.

IDF = Israeli doofus force.

A Palestinian terrorist died in an “accidental explosion” in Gaza, a spokesman for the Hamas-run Ministry of Health said Saturday.


Ibrahim Frahat, a member of the Saraya al-Quds militia of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, died while “preparing for battle,” the militia said in a statement.

Palestinian Terrorist Accidentally Blows Himself Up

A Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist died in an "accidental explosion" in Gaza, a spokesman for the Hamas-run Ministry of Health said Saturday.

forward.com

 

[Mindful]

Commentary
PLO's Program of Deception and Lies
by Bassam Tawil • May 1, 2020 at 5:00 am

• "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security... accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... commits itself... to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides... the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence... the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist... are now inoperative and no longer valid." — Letter from former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, September 9, 1993.
• Why do the Palestinians still need an organization called the Palestine Liberation Organization whose declared goal is the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle? The presence of the PLO bluntly contradicts Arafat's letter in which he claims that the PLO "recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security" and "renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence."
• If the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, why does its largest faction, Fatah, continue to refer to areas inside Israel as "occupied" territory? ... They openly say and show that they consider all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as "occupied" territories that need to be "liberated." This wording lays bare the straightforward lies of the PLO and Arafat about their ostensible support for the two-state solution. At least they should get credit for being honest

Gatestone Institute

 

[P F Tinmore]

You can not use "self-defense" as a means to justify terrorism against the Occupying Power (Israelis).

It is nice that you confirm the occpation.

 

[Mindful]

You can not use "self-defense" as a means to justify terrorism against the Occupying Power (Israelis).

It is nice that you confirm the occpation.

More triggering rubbish.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: In terms of the International Agreement, self-defense is covered in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Are you saying that the Palestinians do not have the right to self defense?

(COMMENT)

Just where in the hell did you get that.

Again, you are twisting the commentary for your own purpose, but not for the truth. Posting 8980 did not even address "self-defense" either on the individual level or on an international level.

However, the Arab Palestinians cannot use conflict as a means to settle disputes. Your entire dialog has been about some way that the Arab Palestinians can justify the use of violence (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). You want to justify the conflict. You want to ignore the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

You can not use "self-defense" as a means to justify terrorism against the Occupying Power (Israelis).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are bouncing around like a football trying to say that the Palestinians have no rights.

Would it be illegal for the Americans to attack the British in 1812?

Would it be illegal for the French to attack the Germans in WWII?

Was it illegal for Vietnam to attack Americans?

Is it illegal for Cashmere to attack India?

...

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, why does its largest faction, Fatah, continue to refer to areas inside Israel as "occupied" territory? ...

That agreement was made behind the backs of the Palestinians without their approval.

 

[Mindful]

If the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, why does its largest faction, Fatah, continue to refer to areas inside Israel as "occupied" territory? ...

That agreement was made behind the backs of the Palestinians without their approval.

Why do you bother?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, why does its largest faction, Fatah, continue to refer to areas inside Israel as "occupied" territory? ...

That agreement was made behind the backs of the Palestinians without their approval.

Why do you bother?

I don't post for the Zionists. They absolutely refuse to learn anything.

 

[Mindful]

If the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, why does its largest faction, Fatah, continue to refer to areas inside Israel as "occupied" territory? ...

That agreement was made behind the backs of the Palestinians without their approval.

Why do you bother?

I don't post for the Zionists. They absolutely refuse to learn anything.

Just who do you think you are?

I’ve got nothing to say to you.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sovereignty is not the same thing as annexation. Prime Minister Netanyahu knows this, which is why he is always careful to speak of exercising Israel’s sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and in the Jordan Valley. The media never seems to see this as a serious distinction, and often cites Netanyahu as speaking of “annexation,” as in this April 26, 2020 Jerusalem Post piece, “Netanyahu: I’m confident annexation will happen in a couple of months.”

In fact, Netanyahu never did say that, which the body of the same article makes clear. “Three months ago, the Trump peace plan recognized Israel’s rights in all of Judea and Samaria,” the article quotes Netanyahu as saying. “President Trump pledged to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Jewish communities there and in the Jordan Valley. In a couple of months from now, I’m confident that pledge will be honored, that we will be able to celebrate another historic moment in the history of Zionism.”

You don’t see the words “annex” or “annexation” in the above quote. You don’t see them there, because to speak of annexation would be to suggest that Israel is taking land that belongs to others and adding it to the State of Israel. Instead, the prime minister says clear as day, Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley are Israel’s lawful territories. They alreadybelong to Israel, are part of Israel. And the U.S., under President Donald J. Trump has pledged to recognize this fact.

The difference between sovereignty and annexation is not just a question of semantics, but of two quite different actions. Writers that insist on using the “a” word strengthen the trope that Israel is an occupier of someone else’s land, that we acquired the land through aggression. And that’s not fair. Or unbiased.

(full article online)

Sovereignty is Not Annexation: Vive la Différence! (Judean Rose)

There's a difference between exercising sovereignty and annexation, would that journalists would learn the distinction.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Why would anyone celebrate the 70th anniversary of the colossal failure of @UNRWA?

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are just grasping at straws.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to say that the Palestinians have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I keep saying it over and over again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the exact same civil and political rights as the Israeli.

Would it be illegal for the Americans to attack the British in 1812?

(COMMENT)

The Americans were defending US Sovereign Territory. The Arab Palestinians are NOT defending Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.

The Israelis had effective control BEFORE the PLO Declared Independence. The Israelis are not taking Arab Territory, it is the Arab Palestinians that are attempting to gain control over territory that was brought under Occupation AFTER the Jordanians abandon it.

Would it be illegal for the French to attack the Germans in WWII?

(COMMENT)

It was legal for the French to defend against the German Invasion. The 1949 Geneva Convention IV had not yet been established. There are different laws today (2020) then there were in the Fall of France (1940) and The Battle of Dunkirk.

Was it illegal for Vietnam to attack Americans?

(COMMENT)

The US was defending the South Vietnamese Government and was on station at the invitation of the South Vietnamese Government. The South Vietnamese were attempting to exercise their right to self-determination within Indochina.

Is it illegal for Cashmere to attack India?

(COMMENT)

Hmmm, I don't believe it is The Kashmir that is defending against India. I think it is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan over control of Kashmir.

But I once bought a sweater in Lahore and actually stay at the Holiday Inn there.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I keep saying it over and over again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the exact same civil and political rights as the Israeli.

So they can return to their homeland?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Americans were defending US Sovereign Territory. The Arab Palestinians are NOT defending Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.

There you go back to the Palestinians not having any rights.

Who told you that Palestine was not sovereign Palestinian territory?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There are times when an intelligence reader must be able to connect the dots.

The Americans were defending US Sovereign Territory. The Arab Palestinians are NOT defending Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.

There you go back to the Palestinians not having any rights.

Who told you that Palestine was not sovereign Palestinian territory?

Link?

(REFERENCE)

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 minimize 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”

sovereignty In political theory, the ultimate authority in the decisionmaking process of the state and in the maintenance of order. In 16thcentury France JEAN BODIN used the concept of sovereignty to bolster the power of the king over his feudal lords, heralding the transition from FEUDALISM to NATIONALISM. By the end of the 18th century, the concept of the SOCIAL CONTRACT led to the idea of popular sovereignty, or sovereignty of the people, through an organized government. The HAGUE CONVENTIONS, the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, and the UNITED NATIONS all have restricted the actions of sovereign countries in the international arena, as has INTERNATIONAL LAW.

(COMMENT)

There are only two places within the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine and west of the Jordan River, that can claim to have been "sovereign" to the Arab Palestinian in the last eight (8) centuries: The Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank.

I keep saying it over and over again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the exact same civil and political rights as the Israeli.

So they can return to their homeland?

(COMMENT)

[A refugee is a] Person involuntarily displaced from his or her homeland. Until the late 19th century and the emergence of fixed and closed national boundaries, refugees were always absorbed by neighbouring countries. Later, immigration restrictions and increasing numbers of refugees necessitated special action to aid them. In 1921 FRIDTJOF NANSEN created a League of Nations Passport to allow refugees to move freely across national boundaries. Refugee status at that time was accorded only if the migrant’s departure was involuntary and asylum was sought in another country. In 1938 the definition of refugee was expanded to include persons with a well-founded fear of persecution because of ethnicity, religion, nationality, group membership, or political opinion. Later the definition was expanded again to include persons who have fled from their homes to other places in their own countries. Refugee status ceases to apply when the migrant either is resettled or returns home. At the beginning of the 21st century there were some 16 million refugees, including nearly 4 million Palestinians; much of the rest of the world’s refugees were in Asia (particularly Afghanistan) and Africa, though conflict in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere in post-Cold War Europe significantly increased the number of refugees in those regions. See also INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE ORGANIZATION; Office of the UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES; UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION.

(COMMENT)

There are several impediments pertaining to the unrestricted "Right of Return" by the Arab Palestinian.

FIRST:

◈ Article 12(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence."

✦ The determination of what constitutes the status of being "lawfully within the territory of" is a matter of domestic law. Article 2(7) in the UN Charter specifically PROHIBITS UN Members from intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."​

◈ Article 12(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own."

✦ No contest.​

◈ Article 12(3) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant."

✦ There is absolutely no question that the Arab Palestinian people are national security threat to the State of Israel, as well as, they present a deadly disturbance to the public order of the state.​

◈ Article 12(4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

✦ There is nothing arbitrary in the restrictions governing entry into the State of Israel. That is both a domestic issue, outside the jurisdiction of the international community, as well as, a matter of protecting the citizens of the State of Israel from a people who want to decimate the Jewish National Home; which has been stated or documented publicly many times.​

SECOND:

◈ There is a conflict in the demand made by the Arab Palestinian that want the application of the "Right of Return" to apply to:

✦ All persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, who were displaced and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. To be eligible, each claimant must be at least 72 years old.​

........................................................................AND​

✦ Self-proclaimed Arab Palestinian Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugees, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East services. Currently, more than 5 million Palestinians are registered with UNRWA as refugees; nearly 95% of which have never had a permanent residence in the State of Israel.​

​

✧ In the case of the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem, those persons acquired a new nationality and enjoyed the protection from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with the new nationality. This nationality existed from 1950 until 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan abandon those people; becoming refugees from Jordan and NOT Arab Palestinian refugees.​

​

✧ The State of Israel has no requirement to extend immigration and naturalization to any person that:​

​

• Has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;​

​

• Has committed "criminal acts" intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public in the State of Israel;​

​

• Has committed a serious non-political crime outside Israel;​

​

• Has been committed acts in direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.​

​

THIRD:

◈ There is a dispute over the demand:

✦ On demand limits the demand to the land based on pre-June 4th 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital.​

........................................................................AND​

✦ One demand extends the claim to the entirety of the territory Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

........................................................................AND​

✦ Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.​

​

✧ The 4 June borders were adopted based on the 1949 Armistice Line. The Armistice Demarcation Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party (Israel, Jordan, Egypt) relating thereto. The Armistice lines were only to shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.​

​

• The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)​

​

• Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)​

​

These are just a few issues that the status of negotiations between whatever faction in the broken and unsuccessful establishment of a government finally begins the process of building a nation for the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R