Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(COMMENT)Victory – Judge supports UMass panel on Palestinian human rights
“There simply cannot be a First Amendment exception when it comes to Palestine.”
(Boston, MA) May 2, 2019:
A Massachusetts district court ruled in favor of allowing a panel discussion at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst to go ahead earlier today. The May 4 panel discussion “Not Backing Down: Israel, Free Speech, and the Battle for Palestinian Human Rights” will be held as planned, despite the legal request for an injunction to halt the panel, premised on a false accusation of antisemitism against the panelists, event sponsors, and attendees.
Victory – Judge supports UMass panel on Palestine
(COMMENT)More of your cut and paste propaganda for Islamic terrorists.
Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This means nothing really. In fact, it places the presenters and speakers in greater jeopardy then you might think.
(COMMENT)Victory – Judge supports UMass panel on Palestinian human rights
“There simply cannot be a First Amendment exception when it comes to Palestine.”
(Boston, MA) May 2, 2019:
A Massachusetts district court ruled in favor of allowing a panel discussion at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst to go ahead earlier today. The May 4 panel discussion “Not Backing Down: Israel, Free Speech, and the Battle for Palestinian Human Rights” will be held as planned, despite the legal request for an injunction to halt the panel, premised on a false accusation of antisemitism against the panelists, event sponsors, and attendees.
Victory – Judge supports UMass panel on Palestine
The ruling is a case on the merits of "free speech." But "free speach" does not override "hate speech" or "incitement to violence." They will have to be very careful about how they make the presentation.
If the panelists, event sponsors, or attendees present an antisemitic or support for any element considered a terrorist organization, they could be in big trouble from a civil suit standpoint, as well as walking the line on criminality.
"Criticism" is one thing! Providing a platform for anti-Israeli organizations to promote acts that are contrary to the purposes and principles of "free speech" are something entirely different. It is my opinion, (absent all the legal wrangling by pro-Hostile Palestinian terrorists) that the platform is nothing more than to attempt to justify rhetoric designed or likely to provoke or further encourage the agitation to environments as a threat to the peace, or breach of the peace.
They are a platform that knowingly incites such acts as a service to the pro-Hostile Palestinian terrorists, with the intention of - or calculated to - cause further violence. To somehow justify offenses which are solely intended to harm the Israeli attempts to bring the territory under Article 43 (HR) public order and safety.
These free speech platforms attempt to justify attacks on the life or limb of members of the Article 43 (HR) forces and administration, as well as, grave collective danger, serious damage the property of the Article 43 (HR) forces and the installations used by them.
The platform is further, as justification for the Hostile Palestinian terrorists to operate in contravention to the Customary and International Humanitarian Law pertaining to (just to name a few used in the last few weeks):
◈ Rule 21: Target Seletion.
◈ Rule 23: DenslyPopulated Areas.
◈ Rule 24: Civilians in the Vicinity of Military Operations.
◈ Rule 97: Human Shields.
Finally, it would be very interesting to know how the "private foundation" was that rented the space on campus for this presentation. Who is this pro-anti Israeli → pro-Arab Palestinian "private foundation?" What is their motivation?
It is time for the Jewish People, investors of the University, to withdraw their support and the Jewish resources migrate to another Educational Institution. I'm sure it will not have any significant impact on the University operations; being merely symbolic.
(REMINDER)
It was these very Hostile Arab Palestinians that killed Gail Rubin (another New Englander), the niece of U.S. Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, D-Conn. "Dalal al-Mugrabi” → was a leader of the Fatah (PLO) squad and former advisor to Mahmoud Abbas. After the murder of Gail Rubin -- the action was immediately followed by the abduction of a civilian bus (Coastal Road Massacre) and the machinegun execution of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Fatah [faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)] terrorist raid was lead by Dalal al-Maghribi (BTW: a former senior adviser to the man who would become the Palestinian Authority Chairman → Mahmoud Abbas); she is celebrated as a martyr -- in which Arab Palestinians commemorated by naming a public square, a couple of schools, a computer center, a soccer tournament, and a summer camp.
They are terrorists...
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.
You are just slinging poo and calling names.
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are just not paying attention.
(COMMENT)Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.
You are just slinging poo and calling names.
Any panel discussion that essentially sanctions armed struggle is a step to incitement. When the panel does that, it is saying that it is lawful for the Arab Palestinians to uses the force of arms against the Israelis.
The incitement is a violation of international law and the act itself is a violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law. There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Most Respectfully,
R
There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are just not paying attention.
(COMMENT)Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.
You are just slinging poo and calling names.
Any panel discussion that essentially sanctions armed struggle is a step to incitement. When the panel does that, it is saying that it is lawful for the Arab Palestinians to uses the force of arms against the Israelis.
The incitement is a violation of international law and the act itself is a violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law. There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Most Respectfully,
RThere is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Not true, of course. All people have the right to self defense.
I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.
Link?
No link?RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are just not paying attention.
(COMMENT)Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.
You are just slinging poo and calling names.
Any panel discussion that essentially sanctions armed struggle is a step to incitement. When the panel does that, it is saying that it is lawful for the Arab Palestinians to uses the force of arms against the Israelis.
The incitement is a violation of international law and the act itself is a violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law. There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Most Respectfully,
RThere is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Not true, of course. All people have the right to self defense.
I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.
Link?
Do you pay attention to the confused ramblings you dump into threads?
Link?
No link?RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are just not paying attention.
(COMMENT)Load of hooey. I have seen many panel discussions and none of them have any of the bullshit you spout.
You are just slinging poo and calling names.
Any panel discussion that essentially sanctions armed struggle is a step to incitement. When the panel does that, it is saying that it is lawful for the Arab Palestinians to uses the force of arms against the Israelis.
The incitement is a violation of international law and the act itself is a violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law. There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Most Respectfully,
RThere is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Not true, of course. All people have the right to self defense.
I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.
Link?
Do you pay attention to the confused ramblings you dump into threads?
Link?
(COMMENT)There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Not true, of course. All people have the right to self-defense.
I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.
Link?
Why is this not self defense?You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.
OK, so how does this apply?ny time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).
How can they be "foreign terrorists" when they cross no borders?You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization"
Why is this not self defense?You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
How foolish can you be.
(COMMENT)There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.
Not true, of course. All people have the right to self-defense.
I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.
Link?
You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.
The HoAP are NOT, repeat "NOT" operating in self-defense. Every act of HoAP violence, what you claim is "self-defense," is (in point of fact) criminal and punishable under Article 68 GCIV. You claim you are under "occupation." In fact, the HoAP call the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip (collectively) the "occupied Palestinian territories." And you call the Israelis the "occupiers." Well, any attack against the occupation force (ie the Israelis) is a "War Crime" {Article 8[2a(i)] and Article 8[2b(i)(iI)] page 5, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court}.
Each act taken against Article 43 obligations (Hague Convention) is an act punishable by Article 68, GCIV as a criminal act.
When you (and in this case I mean YOU personally) utter the words that suggest to the HoAP it is somehow lawful to attack the Israelis, you are advocating violence. It is 100% unlawful for any of the HoAP of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip to engage by:
◈ Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
◈ Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
Any time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).
You cannot deny this. You cannot say "you did not know." And, you cannot claim that just because a Pro-Arab Palestinian Panel did not say → "go commit violence" → when they say "it is justified under self-defense" you do so with the design that it is likely to provoke or encourage threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of violence. Again, this is, in itself a criminal act.
(SUPPLEMENTAL)
I think your Posting #6891 (just as an example) is a case where you are advocating that it is lawful to commit acts of violence under the color of law (self-defense).
You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization" as designated by over 30 countries just in the European Union alone; not to mention the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia.
Most Respectfully,
R
