Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Bar-Ilan University on Thursday welcomed Bahraini ambassador to Israel Khaled Yousif al-Jalahmah, who visited the University's Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials and Faculty of Engineering.

During the visit, the ambassador toured several laboratories and met with University administrators and researchers from a variety of disciplines.

"The scientific agreement signed with Israel on Monday is just the beginning," the ambassador said. "A group of Israeli entrepreneurs recently visited Bahrain and we witnessed wonderful chemistry between them and our Bahraini colleagues. We are looking forward to expanding our cooperation in many different fields."

Bahraini ambassador to Israel visits Bar-Ilan University

'Scientific agreement is just the beginning,' Ambassador al-Jalahmah says.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Russia says Israel offered to mediate in Ukraine crisis

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett offered on Sunday to mediate an end to the Ukraine hostilties during a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin said.

www.reuters.com

MOSCOW, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett offered on Sunday to mediate an end to the Ukraine hostilties during a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin said.

The offer followed months of Ukrainian appeals to Israel to serve as intermediary. read more Israel has good ties with both Moscow and Kyiv, and Bennett has been publicly restrained in remarks about the fighting in Ukraine.

 

[Hollie]

Apartheid, I tell ya'

 

[Hollie]

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: Acquisition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

This is an example of how deceptive the Arab Palestinians can be.

There is NO crime of Apartheid in Israel.

The truthful statement would be that: "Peaceful Resistance" is not a crime. That statement would be true. BUT! Armed Resistance is punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupation or administration, or inflict serious damage to the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to shall be prosecuted and subject to imprisonment.

I would like to promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians stick to the "Whole Truth."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: Acquisition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

This is an example of how deceptive the Arab Palestinians can be.

There is NO crime of Apartheid in Israel.

The truthful statement would be that: "Peaceful Resistance" is not a crime. That statement would be true. BUT! Armed Resistance is punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupation or administration, or inflict serious damage to the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to shall be prosecuted and subject to imprisonment.

I would like to promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians stick to the "Whole Truth."

Most Respectfully,
R

It is legal to defend yourself from foreign armed goons.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is NO crime of Apartheid in Israel.

You need to read up. Israel was created as an apartheid regime.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The truthful statement would be that: "Peaceful Resistance" is not a crime.

Define "peaceful resistance" against an armed attack.

 

[Hollie]

It seems there were some hurt feelings.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC:
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is legal to defend yourself from foreign armed goons.

(COMMENT)
This is posed as an emotional question, masked to appear as a meaningful statement.

◈ Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.

◈ Of course it is NOT illegal to defend oneself. That was not the issue at all. That is the "Red Herring" tactic typically used in pro-Arab Palestinian/anti-Israeli rhetoric. Nearly every non-peaceful event begins with a confrontation instigated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ It begins with uncovering the threat. In 1967, the threat extended from elements of the Arab League.

⟴ The claim that Israel attacked and occupied Arab Palestinian Territory in 1967 is fictitious. In 1967 during the confrontation in the West Bank, the Israeli Forces had engaged and pursued Jordanian Forces, with hot pursuit terminating at the Jordan River.​

✦ Who are the "foreign armed goons?"​

✦ What part does Article 68 (Fourth Geneva Convention) Prosecution play in the matter of "Self-Defense?"​

Entire libraries are dedicated to this question and more. But what is clear is that many of the confrontations presented by the Arab Palestinians are either incited or instigated by Hostile Arab Palestinian influences. We know this, not because I said it, but because it is well documented in the media. These types of confrontations are Criminal Acts directed against Israeli Occupation Force or Civil Administration with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population. The purpose of such acts, by its nature or context and in the words of the inciting influence, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government that furthers the criminal objective. It is centered around the issues directly implicated by the hostile question, supra.

You need to read up. Israel was created as an apartheid regime.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is totally misleading and deliberately intended to deceive the reader.
Before we discuss this any further, you need to look at the 2015:

25 Most Racist Countries In The World: New Rankings​

Israeli is not mentioned. BUT! look at country #8...​

by INAN DOGAN, PhD Research Director, Insider Monkey​

Define "peaceful resistance" against an armed attack.

(COMMENT)

This is one of the strangest questions you have ever asked.

• Launching Rockets into Israel is an "Armed Attack."
• Launching incendiary Devices Israel is an "Armed Attack."
• Using infiltration tunnels to engage targets of opportunity Israel is an "Armed Attack."
• Sending 30,000 Civilians to the border to overrun defenses into Israel is an "Armed Attack."

This is not to mention the numerous actions prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And before you strikeout with the whining that the Palestinians are being denied this, that, and the other thing, it is important to remind you that you cannot claim events that happened a quarter century as being as justification for "self-defense." It is questionable as to whether the event of five years ago as a matter of self-defense. Self-defense is something that happens almost immediately after some hostile event.

These are just a few thoughts.

Most Respectfully,
R
PS:
A book can , and probably has, been written on each of these challenges you put forth. My response is a micro-thumbnail and cannot possibly cover the entirety of the subject or even do it justice. So, before you go off on the "Holy Verbosity" trip on me, remember the actually complexity of each of these subjects.

⟴ Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Self-defense is something that happens almost immediately after some hostile event.

Like house demolitions, land theft, destroying businesses, destroying food and water sources. illegal detentions, shooting unarmed civilians, etc., etc., etc.....?

 

[P F Tinmore]

✦ What part does Article 68 (Fourth Geneva Convention) Prosecution play in the matter of "Self-Defense?"

Interesting question. When a police officer, or other government official, violates a civilian's rights , he will lose his qualified immunity. IOW, violations of law under the color of law will cause him to lose his protected status.

Take Ruby Ridge, for example. A man, under attack by the government, shot and killed a federal agent. A jury ruled that killing self defense.

 

[Hollie]

Like house demolitions, land theft, destroying businesses, destroying food and water sources. illegal detentions, shooting unarmed civilians, etc., etc., etc.....?

Any links to those unsupported ete., etc., etc.

Of course not.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting question. When a police officer, or other government official, violates a civilian's rights , he will lose his qualified immunity. IOW, violations of law under the color of law will cause him to lose his protected status.

Take Ruby Ridge, for example. A man, under attack by the government, shot and killed a federal agent. A jury ruled that killing self defense.

What does Ruby Ridge have to do with largely lawless Islamic terrorist enclaves?

 

[surada]

You have not read the article.
Come back when you do.

If you boycott Israel you hurt the Palestinians. They can't sell or export without a Jewish middle man.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does Ruby Ridge have to do with largely lawless Islamic terrorist enclaves?

It is too complicated for you.