Palestine Today

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

EXCERPT: Media clips removed:

George Galloway : "Ahed Tamimi has every legal never mind just moral right to slap that soldier"​

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

So Israel has the right to shoot her cousin in the face but she is not allowed to slap one of their goontards?

You is one fucked up dude, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

 

[Hollie]

More abuse of female children in the Arab-Moslem Death Cult

 

[USAF 2023]

More abuse of female children in the Arab-Moslem Death Cult

My computer isn’t cooperating so I can’t copy and paste the article title but just recently in Feb. Trump had plans for the “ Two State Solution” It called for “ Palestine” to have its Capital in E. Jerusalem but for the City to be an International City which it was initially supposed to be! Of course the Palestinians rejected it. Trump also stated they should give up “ Right of Return” which of course they rejected. Keep insisting on “ My way or the Highway”. They will get what they deserve; NOTHING !!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today,

Are you still on that phony terrorism shtick?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

EXCERPT: Media clips removed:

George Galloway : "Ahed Tamimi has every legal never mind just moral right to slap that soldier"​

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

So Israel has the right to shoot her cousin in the face but she is not allowed to slap one of their goontards?

You is one fucked up dude, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

EXCERPT: Media clips removed:

George Galloway : "Ahed Tamimi has every legal never mind just moral right to slap that soldier"​

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

So Israel has the right to shoot her cousin in the face but she is not allowed to slap one of their goontards?

You is one fucked up dude, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

 

[Shusha]

Nadia Ben-Youssef: "A New Day? Organizing to Change US Policy on Israel and Palestine"

"I thought it was a Jewish State. You're right there. At the essence. How then can it be a Jewish State and still protect the rights of non-Jews? How can you on the one hand maintain a supremacist ideology and guarantee equality?"

She poses an excellent question. (Unfortunately, she only poses that question about the Jewish state, rather than posing it about every state.) If one was to be objective about that question, one would have to ask if equality can be achieved in ANY state where there is a minority population which is somehow "other" than the dominant culture.

She is essentially arguing that there can not be equality in populations which are not homogeneous.

I wonder how she would have other countries address that issue.

She is essentially arguing that there can not be equality in populations which are not homogeneous.

No she isn't.

Yes. She is. She said it in the video and I quoted the relevant remarks.

She said: How can you have a (insert identity) State and still protect the rights of (non-identity)?

It's a really good question. How DOES a State built around an ethnic or cultural identity protect the rights of those who don't identify?

The problem is that she asks that question ONLY about Israel. She doesn't bother to ask it about Arab Palestine. Or about the Czech Republic. Or about Catalonia. Or about Myanmar. Or Iran (which actually DOES have an apartheid system).

So let's address that question. Is there a country in the world which is built around a single ethnic and cultural identity which has a significant minority culture and does a GOOD job of protecting the rights of that minority?

 

[Shusha]

PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN Lamis Deek

Two thirds of Palestinians are "refugees".

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

EXCERPT: Media clips removed:

George Galloway : "Ahed Tamimi has every legal never mind just moral right to slap that soldier"​

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

So Israel has the right to shoot her cousin in the face but she is not allowed to slap one of their goontards?

You is one fucked up dude, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

EXCERPT: Media clips removed:

George Galloway : "Ahed Tamimi has every legal never mind just moral right to slap that soldier"​

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

So Israel has the right to shoot her cousin in the face but she is not allowed to slap one of their goontards?

You is one fucked up dude, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

 

[Shusha]

More abuse of female children in the Arab-Moslem Death Cult

Wow. Just imagine, as an example, a white supremacist American family indoctrinating their children to kill both themselves as martyrs and the enemy black people in this way. Why does the world accept, let alone champion, such vile, toxic, disgusting abuse of children?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This entire issue of "Juvenile Delinquency" and the "Incarceration of Minors" is nothing more than the exploitation of emotion which is a means of propaganda and fallacy often used in place a subsantive fact.

✪ Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion that is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

• (Apache2 Ubuntu Default Page: It works.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html)
• (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

In addition to the spreading of "disinformation" the propagandist attempts to shift the weight of the specific topic (the non-adult minor Ahed Tamimi) away from that which is based on the content of ideas and opinions on promoting the rule of law ⇒ towards the twin seductions of a non-exist right to use "violence" and the non-exist right to "incitement to violence.".

(COMMENT)

Understanding that the concepts outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR → 1948) now replaced by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR → 1976)(1967), which by the way, never made it into law, does not stipulate any "right to violence." And the UN does not advocate anything other than the Arab Palestinians comply fully and in good faith with their obligations to live in peace. The very idea that some pretender to leadership would suggest that Arab Palestinians, which attempted to establish a regime twenty years (1988) after Israel established "effective control" (at a time after the Kingdom of Jordan openly abandon the territory into the hands of the Israelis) through the use of violence as a first option is a hint as to the mental acuity of the Arab Palestinians.

HR Article 43: (1907)

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​

UDHR Article 20: (1948)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
​

CCPR Article 21: (1976)

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.​

There is no legal right or moral right to the parental incitement → hostile approach → and subsequent escalation to violence. That is simply not the intent of the Declaration of Principles or customary/traditional practice in the application of post-conflict reparation made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.

(COMMENT)

In addition to the contemprary19 Counter-Terrorism Conventions that exist today, the Customary Law, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted by 24 member states of the League of Nations on November 16, 1937, still has meaning as a source of International Law. It also prevents the incitement and encouragement.

View attachment 184391
​

There is no law that allows that actions of either Ms Ahed Tamimi or her mother. It does not matter what dispute there is, including occupation. The occupation was established well before the State of Palestine was established.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

 

[Hollie]

Ask Pro Palestinians where “ Palestine” was before 1967 and there will be no response.

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

Already did. Prove I didn't.

 

[USAF 2023]

Nadia Ben-Youssef: "A New Day? Organizing to Change US Policy on Israel and Palestine"

"I thought it was a Jewish State. You're right there. At the essence. How then can it be a Jewish State and still protect the rights of non-Jews? How can you on the one hand maintain a supremacist ideology and guarantee equality?"

She poses an excellent question. (Unfortunately, she only poses that question about the Jewish state, rather than posing it about every state.) If one was to be objective about that question, one would have to ask if equality can be achieved in ANY state where there is a minority population which is somehow "other" than the dominant culture.

She is essentially arguing that there can not be equality in populations which are not homogeneous.

I wonder how she would have other countries address that issue.

She is essentially arguing that there can not be equality in populations which are not homogeneous.

No she isn't.

Yes. She is. She said it in the video and I quoted the relevant remarks.

She said: How can you have a (insert identity) State and still protect the rights of (non-identity)?

It's a really good question. How DOES a State built around an ethnic or cultural identity protect the rights of those who don't identify?

The problem is that she asks that question ONLY about Israel. She doesn't bother to ask it about Arab Palestine. Or about the Czech Republic. Or about Catalonia. Or about Myanmar. Or Iran (which actually DOES have an apartheid system).

So let's address that question. Is there a country in the world which is built around a single ethnic and cultural identity which has a significant minority culture and does a GOOD job of protecting the rights of that minority?

The fact that “ Palestine” has declared itself a No Israelis Allowed Country or that Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall is OK with him. That is why E. Jerusalem will Never be part of “ Palestine”
I love when he quotes “ International Law”,yet we all know that if the Arabs had won the 67 War Israel wouldn’t exist.
The U.N decided that Jerusalem should be an International City, something the Arabs ignored. Just proof that “ International Law” is a farce.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is right were it has been since 1924.

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

Already did. Prove I didn't.

I was expecting your usual duck. You never disappoint.

 

[Hollie]

The geographic area, yes. If you study some history, you will learn that a loosely defined geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks existed prior to 1924.

This would be the appropriate time for you, yet again, to make the pointless argument that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan“. That would make it, what, the umpteenth time you made that ridiculous argument?

You still have this notion of the “country of Pal’iatan“ as some wondrous mini-caliphate. You need help addressing the fantasies that consume you.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

Already did. Prove I didn't.

I was expecting your usual duck. You never disappoint.

I expected your usual tirade in view of your inability to refute my argument. You never fail to disappoint.

 

[P F Tinmore]

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

Already did. Prove I didn't.

I was expecting your usual duck. You never disappoint.

I expected your usual tirade in view of your inability to refute my argument. You never fail to disappoint.

I can't argue a duck.

 

[rylah]

Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice. MLK

צדק= justice

"Kindness and truth have met; justice and peace have kissed.
Truth will sprout from the earth, and justice will look down from heaven." ~ King David

 

[Hollie]

Yes dear. You have cut and pasted that opinion many times before.

It's as pointless now as all of the other times you have used it to spam various threads.

You're not the least bit embarrassed at being a buffoon?

OK, so you post something to prove your point.

Already did. Prove I didn't.

I was expecting your usual duck. You never disappoint.

I expected your usual tirade in view of your inability to refute my argument. You never fail to disappoint.

I can't argue a duck.

You can’t argue anything. That’s why you're limited to cutting and pasting YouTube videos.

 

[rylah]

Sure. That is why I post stuff.

Ok there were a couple of points. Let me listen again find one by one.
She sounds the most rational among the Palestinian politicians.

Ok, until 3:25 when she says : "Is it that we don't want peace? Is it that peace jeopardizes reality?"

As far as I understand for her peace is recognition of Palestinian suffering, their nationhood and territorial needs for further development. Right?
I basically have no argument with that.

Also when asked about Abbas and terror she refers to the wall and suffering as reality.
This is a correct line of thought imo, but lacking the understanding of the Israeli side, maybe even not lacking but trying to deflect and focus on the "good non violent" but not specifying exactly what, and I'm not sure she's pointing to BDS because aside from a couple of churches, on the ground Bethlehem is very involved economically with Israel.

Now back to the quote, the 1st part is correct on both sides on many layers out of distrust, while also there're people on both sides who simply want to live their lives..."Does the peace jeopardize reality?"
If You put it that way Hamas and PLO are irrelevant once people on the ground have a bigger authority,

Q. Don't You think that the main issue here is the definition of peace...

God question. Could you define what Israel would consider peace?

Ok, just from the top of it,
establishing a reliable relationship with heads of the Arab community on both sides.

Making sure our adversaries understand we have spiritual, intellectual, and physical power based on our natural right to this land,not to be played with, if You want Your people to live a good life. Once You move beyond that practical point, get this out of the way - we can have a REAL PEACEFUL meaningful conversation, and settle things out. Step 1.

I'd sincerely like to see people like her empowered more, seems like You could get through to her.

From what I can tell this is what the Palestinians want.

They want to live in their own homes, farm their own land, pick their own fruit, work in their own shops and factories. Also good public services like clean water and good schools.

Ok, let's go with this before we discuss more of what she said,

so all of that is achievable in their own separate state, of course unconditional opposition to the existence of Israel is an obstacle to that goal. In my view this is an irrational self-defeating vision.

Q.What is a better return politically and economically for the average Palestinian Arab - investment in hostilities or investments in factories, farms water and schools?