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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.
This makes them active in aiding and abetting, or accessory to the offenses; an enemy population that has adopted and furthered the Hamas Covenant.
Most Respectfully,
R
Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.
Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.
In the case of Gaza, yes there was a vote for Hamas, but under what conditions? Gaza is an open air prison, cut off from the world by Israel, with supplies uncertain, under constant military threat, if not actual attack. Do you think that might generate some militant feelings? Americans have in the past endorsed some pretty radical measures, such as the imperial adventure in Iraq for example, or the suspention of certain civil rights after 9/11, despite a generally comfortable existence. If under constant stress of hunger and attack, how radical would Americans become, do you think?
This is a rationale you want to be careful with, because following this logic Americans, participating in a true democracy, would become targets around the world, from 17 year old backbackers to vacationing grandmothers, due to the foreign policy of the US.
(COMMENT)The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.
(COMMENT)Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.
Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.
In the case of Gaza, yes there was a vote for Hamas, but under what conditions? Gaza is an open air prison, cut off from the world by Israel, with supplies uncertain, under constant military threat, if not actual attack. Do you think that might generate some militant feelings? Americans have in the past endorsed some pretty radical measures, such as the imperial adventure in Iraq for example, or the suspention of certain civil rights after 9/11, despite a generally comfortable existence. If under constant stress of hunger and attack, how radical would Americans become, do you think?
This is a rationale you want to be careful with, because following this logic Americans, participating in a true democracy, would become targets around the world, from 17 year old backbackers to vacationing grandmothers, due to the foreign policy of the US.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.
P F Tinmore, et al,
I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force. This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups. But there really is no such right.
(COMMENT)How much of this is relevant when fighting a foreign occupation,
Under domestic law, all these apply. None are based on some underlying International Law. If a Palestine kills anyone in Israel (or any territory Israel Occupies), for whatever reason, Israel domestic law on homicide is applicable.
Under International Law, there is no limitation to duration of an occupation. There really is no law that prohibits an occupation that was pursuant to the hot pursuit of enemy forces, in which the overrun territory was occupied as a military necessity for rear area protection and the containment of hostile insurgent activity directed towards a sovereign state.
The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.
(QUESTIONs)
- Who used force first?
- Has there ever been a Peace between the Palestinian and Israelis since hostilities opened?
(ANSWERs)
- No
- No
Most Respectfully,
R
I thought these were actions against your own country. How do they apply to an occupation?
Palestinian law states that it is legal to import and manufacture weapons. Where did you get this?
Explosives Handling
All countries have explosives. Do you have a point.
The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.
Let's see. The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That would be the first aggressive move.
P F Tinmore, et al,
I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force. This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups. But there really is no such right.
(COMMENT)
Under domestic law, all these apply. None are based on some underlying International Law. If a Palestine kills anyone in Israel (or any territory Israel Occupies), for whatever reason, Israel domestic law on homicide is applicable.
Under International Law, there is no limitation to duration of an occupation. There really is no law that prohibits an occupation that was pursuant to the hot pursuit of enemy forces, in which the overrun territory was occupied as a military necessity for rear area protection and the containment of hostile insurgent activity directed towards a sovereign state.
The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.
(QUESTIONs)
- Who used force first?
- Has there ever been a Peace between the Palestinian and Israelis since hostilities opened?
(ANSWERs)
- No
- No
Most Respectfully,
R
I thought these were actions against your own country. How do they apply to an occupation?
Palestinian law states that it is legal to import and manufacture weapons. Where did you get this?
All countries have explosives. Do you have a point.
The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.
Let's see. The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That would be the first aggressive move.
How many times does Rocco have to dismantle this 'logic' . And stop calling it a COUNTRY. You admitted yourself it was not. You can't even keep up with your own statements Tinmore.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians could have had their own country ten times over by now. But they have chosen the path of war, death and destruction instead, whilst crying over the fact that they have no state to call their own
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1N1zhUm84w]The great Palestinian lie - YouTube[/ame]
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians could have had their own country ten times over by now. But they have chosen the path of war, death and destruction instead, whilst crying over the fact that they have no state to call their own
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1N1zhUm84w]The great Palestinian lie - YouTube[/ame]
The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN divide it into three areas of occupation the following year. I never could find out why that happened.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
(COMMENT)
First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination). If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.
The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).
An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace. It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians could have had their own country ten times over by now. But they have chosen the path of war, death and destruction instead, whilst crying over the fact that they have no state to call their own
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1N1zhUm84w]The great Palestinian lie - YouTube[/ame]
The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN divide it into three areas of occupation the following year. I never could find out why that happened.
The Palestinians could have had their own country ten times over by now. But they have chosen the path of war, death and destruction instead, whilst crying over the fact that they have no state to call their own
The great Palestinian lie - YouTube
The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN divide it into three areas of occupation the following year. I never could find out why that happened.
Well the purpose of dividing the territory was to give the Jews a state, was it not ?
The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN divide it into three areas of occupation the following year. I never could find out why that happened.
Well the purpose of dividing the territory was to give the Jews a state, was it not ?
They did not do that. They just created three areas of occupation.
Well the purpose of dividing the territory was to give the Jews a state, was it not ?
They did not do that. They just created three areas of occupation.
Well I definitely agree that nothing turned out how the U.N, British had planned and anticipated, but s state for the Jewish people was created in the end.
Well the purpose of dividing the territory was to give the Jews a state, was it not ?
They did not do that. They just created three areas of occupation.
Well I definitely agree that nothing turned out how the U.N, British had planned and anticipated
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well! Maybe say almost a 100 years ago. Technically, the undefined territory (called today) Palestine, was under the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Mehmet IV Vahdettin), and the successor state did not renounce all formal rights of suzerainty, sovereignty, and or jurisdiction until 24 August 1920. Only the Hedjaz was recognized by treaty and the Allied Powers as a free and independent State inside the Levant.
But let's call it good enough for Palestinian work.
(COMMENT)Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.
In 5 Generations the conflict has endured. And again, it was a Mandate, not an Occupation until 1967 when conflict was provoked.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well! Maybe say almost a 100 years ago. Technically, the undefined territory (called today) Palestine, was under the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Mehmet IV Vahdettin), and the successor state did not renounce all formal rights of suzerainty, sovereignty, and or jurisdiction until 24 August 1920. Only the Hedjaz was recognized by treaty and the Allied Powers as a free and independent State inside the Levant.
But let's call it good enough for Palestinian work.
(COMMENT)Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.
In 5 Generations the conflict has endured. And again, it was a Mandate, not an Occupation until 1967 when conflict was provoked.
Most Respectfully,
R
I said a hundred not one hundred. You are being picayune.
It was supposed to be a mandate but it was run like an occupation. Britain violated the mandate by kicking the natives aside, who it was supposed to assist in creating an independent state, and pursued its own conflicting agenda.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well! Maybe say almost a 100 years ago. Technically, the undefined territory (called today) Palestine, was under the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Mehmet IV Vahdettin), and the successor state did not renounce all formal rights of suzerainty, sovereignty, and or jurisdiction until 24 August 1920. Only the Hedjaz was recognized by treaty and the Allied Powers as a free and independent State inside the Levant.
But let's call it good enough for Palestinian work.
(COMMENT)
In 5 Generations the conflict has endured. And again, it was a Mandate, not an Occupation until 1967 when conflict was provoked.
Most Respectfully,
R
I said a hundred not one hundred. You are being picayune.
It was supposed to be a mandate but it was run like an occupation. Britain violated the mandate by kicking the natives aside, who it was supposed to assist in creating an independent state, and pursued its own conflicting agenda.
It's not the Brits fault that the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan on behalf of the Palestinians ....
