Boycott Israel

[Mindful]

Poster boy for anti semitism, Roger Waters, is on the panel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so confused.

The military is NOT Sovereignty. You are correct on that point. BUT, military control by one nation can prevent any other entity from gaining sovereignty.

The West Bank, as an example, except for Area "A" is not sovereign Arab Palestinian Territory (State of Palestine). But Areas "B" and "C" are not sovereign to either. The State of Palestine does not have exclusive political control over either, yet Israel does not yet want to assume Sovereignty (except for what the Knesset has passed under the law).

As far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, the Israelis turned that ground over by unilateral withdrawal and abandonment. But the "State of Palestine" does NOT have exclusive control over the Gaza Strip, as having the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and a few other influences [Including Iran's Revolutionary Guards - Quds Force (IRGC-QF)] prevents exclusive controls by any other.

You keep saying that the Palestinians do not have sovereignty but have never proved that point.

You confuse military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

In the period in which the "territorialization of power" was formulated (the idea of defined territory combined with a defined government) there developed a system of mutually recognized sovereign territorial states. We called this → "Territorial Sovereignty" (sovereignty in short form). This concept, while not entirely universal, has been accepted generally accepted even by the Arab-Muslim World.

Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3] It has a positive and negative aspect.[4] The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.[5] Boundaries are of three dimensions.[6] They include the State land and the maritime domain of its internal waters and territorial sea, the airspace and its subsoil. They are either natural topographical, having physical distinguishable features such as mountains, rivers or lakes, or imaginary and artificial such as lines of attitude and longitude, surveyor lines or posts. Both types have equal legal effects and usually based upon treaties or historical title.
SOURCE: • Private Site for Legal Research and Studies •

Footnotes;

[1] See L. Oppenheim, 1 International Law, p. 563, eds. R.J. Jennings and A.D. Watts, 9th ed. London (1992).

[2] See J.L. Brierly, Law of Nations, p. 142, 4th ed., Oxford (1949).

[3] See Shaw, pp. 411-12.

[4] Id. p. 412.

[5] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 143.

[6] Id. pp. 143-4

Now is this "proof?" No!

This is only as good as the next war outcome. In fact, this concept is only been around since the time of the Treaties of Westphalia (o/a ≈ 1640s). But this series of political outcomes was really driven by the need for the European Monarchs, the Tsar, and the Sultan, in the time of the big empires to reach a common understanding that it was very legitimate and within the right of the Imperial Leaders to govern their peoples → free from outside interference (sound familiar?)... The next World War to end all World Wars might spring an entirely new concept.

BUT for now, the question to ask in Wesphaline fashion is: since 1918, when the Ottoman Empire surrendered aboard the HMS Agamemnon (surrender including the Sanjak now known as Israel and the disputed territories), did the Arab Palestinians exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State?

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty. And this is the rather easiest question to answer. That comes before we explore the concept of competence and capacity to be a state that can stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty.

Indeed, a foreign military power preventing the exercise of the right to sovereignty is an act of aggression against that sovereign territory. It is illegal external interference, or however you want to put it.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so confused.

The military is NOT Sovereignty. You are correct on that point. BUT, military control by one nation can prevent any other entity from gaining sovereignty.

The West Bank, as an example, except for Area "A" is not sovereign Arab Palestinian Territory (State of Palestine). But Areas "B" and "C" are not sovereign to either. The State of Palestine does not have exclusive political control over either, yet Israel does not yet want to assume Sovereignty (except for what the Knesset has passed under the law).

As far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, the Israelis turned that ground over by unilateral withdrawal and abandonment. But the "State of Palestine" does NOT have exclusive control over the Gaza Strip, as having the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and a few other influences [Including Iran's Revolutionary Guards - Quds Force (IRGC-QF)] prevents exclusive controls by any other.

You keep saying that the Palestinians do not have sovereignty but have never proved that point.

You confuse military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

In the period in which the "territorialization of power" was formulated (the idea of defined territory combined with a defined government) there developed a system of mutually recognized sovereign territorial states. We called this → "Territorial Sovereignty" (sovereignty in short form). This concept, while not entirely universal, has been accepted generally accepted even by the Arab-Muslim World.

Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3] It has a positive and negative aspect.[4] The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.[5] Boundaries are of three dimensions.[6] They include the State land and the maritime domain of its internal waters and territorial sea, the airspace and its subsoil. They are either natural topographical, having physical distinguishable features such as mountains, rivers or lakes, or imaginary and artificial such as lines of attitude and longitude, surveyor lines or posts. Both types have equal legal effects and usually based upon treaties or historical title.
SOURCE: • Private Site for Legal Research and Studies •

Footnotes;

[1] See L. Oppenheim, 1 International Law, p. 563, eds. R.J. Jennings and A.D. Watts, 9th ed. London (1992).

[2] See J.L. Brierly, Law of Nations, p. 142, 4th ed., Oxford (1949).

[3] See Shaw, pp. 411-12.

[4] Id. p. 412.

[5] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 143.

[6] Id. pp. 143-4

Now is this "proof?" No!

This is only as good as the next war outcome. In fact, this concept is only been around since the time of the Treaties of Westphalia (o/a ≈ 1640s). But this series of political outcomes was really driven by the need for the European Monarchs, the Tsar, and the Sultan, in the time of the big empires to reach a common understanding that it was very legitimate and within the right of the Imperial Leaders to govern their peoples → free from outside interference (sound familiar?)... The next World War to end all World Wars might spring an entirely new concept.

BUT for now, the question to ask in Wesphaline fashion is: since 1918, when the Ottoman Empire surrendered aboard the HMS Agamemnon (surrender including the Sanjak now known as Israel and the disputed territories), did the Arab Palestinians exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State?

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty. And this is the rather easiest question to answer. That comes before we explore the concept of competence and capacity to be a state that can stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty.

Indeed, a foreign military power preventing the exercise of the right to sovereignty is an act of aggression against that sovereign territory. It is illegal external interference, or however you want to put it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty.

Indeed, a foreign military power preventing the exercise of the right to sovereignty is an act of aggression against that sovereign territory. It is illegal external interference, or however you want to put it.

(COMMENT)

There is no International Law that I am aware of that requires the Israelis to give control to the territory they have assumed control over.

The Arab Palestinians do not have any "right" to take territory away from the Israelis, after the fact.

FACT: Jordan abandon the West Bank leaving (31 Jul 88) it in Israeli hands. There was no Arab Palestinian activity that was formed into a government at that time.
​

After the fact, after the Israelis assumed responsibility in the abandonment, the Arab Palestinians come around and invent a claim that they are the rightful sovereign leadership. It is now 30 years later and the Arab Palestinians still cannot form a functional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty.

Indeed, a foreign military power preventing the exercise of the right to sovereignty is an act of aggression against that sovereign territory. It is illegal external interference, or however you want to put it.

(COMMENT)

There is no International Law that I am aware of that requires the Israelis to give control to the territory they have assumed control over.

The Arab Palestinians do not have any "right" to take territory away from the Israelis, after the fact.

FACT: Jordan abandon the West Bank leaving (31 Jul 88) it in Israeli hands. There was no Arab Palestinian activity that was formed into a government at that time.
​

After the fact, after the Israelis assumed responsibility in the abandonment, the Arab Palestinians come around and invent a claim that they are the rightful sovereign leadership. It is now 30 years later and the Arab Palestinians still cannot form a functional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are late in the game.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, having the "right" to sovereignty IS NOT the same as exercising sovereignty.

Indeed, a foreign military power preventing the exercise of the right to sovereignty is an act of aggression against that sovereign territory. It is illegal external interference, or however you want to put it.

(COMMENT)

There is no International Law that I am aware of that requires the Israelis to give control to the territory they have assumed control over.

The Arab Palestinians do not have any "right" to take territory away from the Israelis, after the fact.

FACT: Jordan abandon the West Bank leaving (31 Jul 88) it in Israeli hands. There was no Arab Palestinian activity that was formed into a government at that time.
​

After the fact, after the Israelis assumed responsibility in the abandonment, the Arab Palestinians come around and invent a claim that they are the rightful sovereign leadership. It is now 30 years later and the Arab Palestinians still cannot form a functional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are late in the game.

Game’s over for the Islamic terrorist pals.

 

[Mindful]

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”


Well, there is certainly no doubt they would promote BDS in Israel. I’m not generally in favor of barring people from countries unless they’re involved in criminal activity, but in this case that’s exactly what Tlaib and Omar would have been involved in: encouraging the implacable and genocidal jihad against Israel.

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”


Well, there is certainly no doubt they would promote BDS in Israel. I’m not generally in favor of barring people from countries unless they’re involved in criminal activity, but in this case that’s exactly what Tlaib and Omar would have been involved in: encouraging the implacable and genocidal jihad against Israel.

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”

Israel is afraid of two women.

You can't get more candy ass than that.

 

[Hollie]

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”


Well, there is certainly no doubt they would promote BDS in Israel. I’m not generally in favor of barring people from countries unless they’re involved in criminal activity, but in this case that’s exactly what Tlaib and Omar would have been involved in: encouraging the implacable and genocidal jihad against Israel.

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”

Israel is afraid of two women.

You can't get more candy ass than that.

Israel is afraid?

Link?

 

[Mindful]

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”


Well, there is certainly no doubt they would promote BDS in Israel. I’m not generally in favor of barring people from countries unless they’re involved in criminal activity, but in this case that’s exactly what Tlaib and Omar would have been involved in: encouraging the implacable and genocidal jihad against Israel.

Tlaib and Omar barred from Israel after all for “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS”

Israel is afraid of two women.

You can't get more candy ass than that.

Stupendously stupid remark.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel to host 27 US students in new marine sciences exchange program

 

[P F Tinmore]

Brighton activists, in the south of England, keep up the pressure against HSBC.

 

[Hollie]

Brighton activists, in the south of England, keep up the pressure against HSBC.

Three “activists”.

One more and they can have pairs at miniature golf.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Brighton activists, in the south of England, keep up the pressure against HSBC.

Hang Seng Bancorp. Capitalists. Don’t care about the broke terrorists in Gaza and the WB.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Keep in mind the BDS movement is not about a two state solution it is about the wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. Those in this thread who support BDS support the death of every Jew living in Israel.

Tinless, LA Rams Loser and those who support them are supporting the death of Jews in Israel.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ilhan Omar & Rashida Tlaib Partnered with Vicious Anti-Semites | National Review

 

[MortSahlFan]

How the fuck am I supposed to boycott Israel? Do they produce something that I use?

Hummus? You can post facts on message boards, social media, etc... Post videos like

 

[P F Tinmore]

HSBC closed in Manchester.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Sixties Fan]

There are no Jews in most Arab countries, at all. THAT is Apartheid.

Palestinians are not allowed citizenship or good jobs and a good living in some of the Arab countries.

THAT is Apartheid.