Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

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

Just because a cute little sound bite gets published, does mean it is grounded in reality - or true.

Truncated: Mural "Resistance is Not Terrorism" with a silhouette of "Dalal al-Maghribi"

Dalal Mughrabi (Arabic language: دلال المغربي‎, Dalāl al-Muɣrabī; ca. 1959 – 11 March 1978) was a Palestinian militant who was a member of the Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and participated in the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in Israel. The attack resulted in the death of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

(COMMENT)

Today in Palestine, the expression "act of terrorism" means criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create terror in the mindes of particular persons, or a group of persons or the general public [See the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)]

Nowhere is the definition more applicable than in the application and description of the Hostile Arab Palestinians that somehow have come to believe that killing unarmed civilians and children is a courageous act performed proud place act and worthy of a place in Palestinian history. Nor is it even permissible to incite the people to commit a terrorist act or acts motivated by extremism and intolerance.

These "acts of terrorism" ⟴ irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security; international law unequivocal condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, even if the underlying motivation is resistance. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION for any act → intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

Incitement to violence by attempting to promote the idea that the violence is "legal" (somehow not terrorism) is illegal on its own.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nowhere is the definition more applicable than in the application and description of the Hostile Arab Palestinians

Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinian's self defense and resistance to occupation are hostile?

Why do you always play the terrorist card on the Palestinians when they are not the aggressor?

 

[P F Tinmore]

cute Arabic school girls of palestine dance on palestine nationl song

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

“Concerted attempts to silence criticism of Israel in the U.S” Maria LaHood

 

[RoccoR]

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

With you, there is always something that wishes to argue for the "Right to Kill Israelis."

Nowhere is the definition more applicable than in the application and description of the Hostile Arab Palestinians

Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinian's self-defense and resistance to occupation are hostile?

Why do you always play the terrorist card on the Palestinians when they are not the aggressor?

(BLUF)

Not all acts of self-defense are a legitimate "resistance against occupation." When the "resistance against occupation" committed are acts solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, and constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, or represent a grave collective danger, seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them (Collectively Known as Hostile Acts) are punishable under Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV.

While not all acts of aggression are terrorism, all acts of terrorism are examples of aggression.

Criminal Acts directed against a State with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act - are acts of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

There are interlocking and remarkably similar connections between aggression, terrorism and criminal acts taken against the Occupation Force or a state.

When the Arab Palestinians send - on behalf of a State (the Arab Palestinian People) - armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, (in contemporary terms Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter) which carry out acts of armed force against the State of Israel, this is generally referred to as State Sponsored Terrorism. But it is also, by definition, acts of aggression.

Similarly, The action of Arab Palestinians in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State (example Iran), to be used for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; is also (by definition) an act of aggression.

Also, each time the Hostile Arab Palestinian launched rockets and mortars into Israel, or attempt to breach the border to penetrate Israel is by definition, an act of aggression.

In the past, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have tried to scramble these concepts, turn them around, and then attempt to use them as justification for armed struggle and jihad. But the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938) makes it clear that not only are the acts themselves considered terrorism, but the incitement to perform any such acts are a form of terrorism.

(LOGIC and RATIONALE)

PART ONE: On the Question of Hostile Occupation → A actual definition of an "occupation" (as in Occupied Territory) is NOT dependent on the basis of "legal v Illegal" - "Peaceful v Hostile" - "Right v Wrong." These are merely adjectives that describe the character of the occupation. An occupation has a definite property of being "placed under the authority of the hostile army."

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Definition of an Occupation: 'Article 42, Hague Regulation of 1907'

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Article 42.

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

• IF the territory is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile Army"
• THEN the territory is NOT "Occupied."
​

PART TWO: On the Question on the Relationship Between Terrorist and Aggressor →

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Article 1 - Definition of Aggression - A/RES/3314(XXIX) 14 December 1974
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​

• IF the use of armed force is NOT against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of another State

• THEN the use of force is NOT an act of aggression.

______________________________________________
​

I have, in the past, attempted to break this up into smaller and better digestible nuggets of information. But I find that opponents and the supporters of Arab Palestinian Terrorism flip the mirror and come back with an approach that does not tie it up into a coherent presentation. For that reason, I've tried to bring various notions together in a single dose..

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

With you, there is always something that wishes to argue for the "Right to Kill Israelis."

Nowhere is the definition more applicable than in the application and description of the Hostile Arab Palestinians

Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinian's self-defense and resistance to occupation are hostile?

Why do you always play the terrorist card on the Palestinians when they are not the aggressor?

(BLUF)

Not all acts of self-defense are a legitimate "resistance against occupation." When the "resistance against occupation" committed are acts solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, and constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, or represent a grave collective danger, seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them (Collectively Known as Hostile Acts) are punishable under Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV.

While not all acts of aggression are terrorism, all acts of terrorism are examples of aggression.

Criminal Acts directed against a State with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act - are acts of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

There are interlocking and remarkably similar connections between aggression, terrorism and criminal acts taken against the Occupation Force or a state.

When the Arab Palestinians send - on behalf of a State (the Arab Palestinian People) - armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, (in contemporary terms Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter) which carry out acts of armed force against the State of Israel, this is generally referred to as State Sponsored Terrorism. But it is also, by definition, acts of aggression.

Similarly, The action of Arab Palestinians in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State (example Iran), to be used for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; is also (by definition) an act of aggression.

Also, each time the Hostile Arab Palestinian launched rockets and mortars into Israel, or attempt to breach the border to penetrate Israel is by definition, an act of aggression.

In the past, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have tried to scramble these concepts, turn them around, and then attempt to use them as justification for armed struggle and jihad. But the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938) makes it clear that not only are the acts themselves considered terrorism, but the incitement to perform any such acts are a form of terrorism.

(LOGIC and RATIONALE)

PART ONE: On the Question of Hostile Occupation → A actual definition of an "occupation" (as in Occupied Territory) is NOT dependent on the basis of "legal v Illegal" - "Peaceful v Hostile" - "Right v Wrong." These are merely adjectives that describe the character of the occupation. An occupation has a definite property of being "placed under the authority of the hostile army."

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Definition of an Occupation: 'Article 42, Hague Regulation of 1907'

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Article 42.

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

• IF the territory is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile Army"
• THEN the territory is NOT "Occupied."
​

PART TWO: On the Question on the Relationship Between Terrorist and Aggressor →

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Article 1 - Definition of Aggression - A/RES/3314(XXIX) 14 December 1974
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​

• IF the use of armed force is NOT against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of another State

• THEN the use of force is NOT an act of aggression.

______________________________________________
​

I have, in the past, attempted to break this up into smaller and better digestible nuggets of information. But I find that opponents and the supporters of Arab Palestinian Terrorism flip the mirror and come back with an approach that does not tie it up into a coherent presentation. For that reason, I've tried to bring various notions together in a single dose..

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some examples.

 

[rylah]

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

With you, there is always something that wishes to argue for the "Right to Kill Israelis."

Nowhere is the definition more applicable than in the application and description of the Hostile Arab Palestinians

Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinian's self-defense and resistance to occupation are hostile?

Why do you always play the terrorist card on the Palestinians when they are not the aggressor?

(BLUF)

Not all acts of self-defense are a legitimate "resistance against occupation." When the "resistance against occupation" committed are acts solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, and constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, or represent a grave collective danger, seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them (Collectively Known as Hostile Acts) are punishable under Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV.

While not all acts of aggression are terrorism, all acts of terrorism are examples of aggression.

Criminal Acts directed against a State with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act - are acts of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

There are interlocking and remarkably similar connections between aggression, terrorism and criminal acts taken against the Occupation Force or a state.

When the Arab Palestinians send - on behalf of a State (the Arab Palestinian People) - armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, (in contemporary terms Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter) which carry out acts of armed force against the State of Israel, this is generally referred to as State Sponsored Terrorism. But it is also, by definition, acts of aggression.

Similarly, The action of Arab Palestinians in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State (example Iran), to be used for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; is also (by definition) an act of aggression.

Also, each time the Hostile Arab Palestinian launched rockets and mortars into Israel, or attempt to breach the border to penetrate Israel is by definition, an act of aggression.

In the past, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have tried to scramble these concepts, turn them around, and then attempt to use them as justification for armed struggle and jihad. But the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938) makes it clear that not only are the acts themselves considered terrorism, but the incitement to perform any such acts are a form of terrorism.

(LOGIC and RATIONALE)

PART ONE: On the Question of Hostile Occupation → A actual definition of an "occupation" (as in Occupied Territory) is NOT dependent on the basis of "legal v Illegal" - "Peaceful v Hostile" - "Right v Wrong." These are merely adjectives that describe the character of the occupation. An occupation has a definite property of being "placed under the authority of the hostile army."

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Definition of an Occupation: 'Article 42, Hague Regulation of 1907'

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Article 42.

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

• IF the territory is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile Army"
• THEN the territory is NOT "Occupied."
​

PART TWO: On the Question on the Relationship Between Terrorist and Aggressor →

The law is quite simple, clear and concise:

Article 1 - Definition of Aggression - A/RES/3314(XXIX) 14 December 1974
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​

• IF the use of armed force is NOT against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of another State

• THEN the use of force is NOT an act of aggression.

______________________________________________
​

I have, in the past, attempted to break this up into smaller and better digestible nuggets of information. But I find that opponents and the supporters of Arab Palestinian Terrorism flip the mirror and come back with an approach that does not tie it up into a coherent presentation. For that reason, I've tried to bring various notions together in a single dose..

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some examples.

An army that doesn't attack from under their women's skirts.
An army that doesn't strap suicide belts to children.

 

[Shusha]

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some examples.

You would have to first give some examples of Israel's "violent aggression". Do not include anything that is a response to Arab Palestinian violent aggression because that is simply self defense and not aggression.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You've rendered a loaded question. It was not Israel that was the aggressor.

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some examples.

(COMMENT)

But even more than that, your question shows an absolute and complete failure to understand a very basic Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. [A/RES/2625 (XXV)]

◈ Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

◈ States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

The Israelis did not engage the Arab Palestinians first. It was the other way around. In terms of the conflict relative to the territories, the conflict was originally spirited between the Israelis and the Jordanians (over the West Bank and Jerusalem) and the Israelis and Egyptians (over the Gaza Strip).

The at the time of the conflict (Six Day War of 1967) the Palestinians did not declare independence until 1988; twenty years later.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The problem is that many Arab Palestinians, and people like Tinmore, view ANY Jewish self-determination in the Jewish homeland as being a "violent aggression" against Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

You've rendered a loaded question. It was not Israel that was the aggressor.

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some examples.

(COMMENT)

But even more than that, your question shows an absolute and complete failure to understand a very basic Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. [A/RES/2625 (XXV)]

◈ Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

◈ States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

The Israelis did not engage the Arab Palestinians first. It was the other way around. In terms of the conflict relative to the territories, the conflict was originally spirited between the Israelis and the Jordanians (over the West Bank and Jerusalem) and the Israelis and Egyptians (over the Gaza Strip).

The at the time of the conflict (Six Day War of 1967) the Palestinians did not declare independence until 1988; twenty years later.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you want to start history someplace in the middle of your choice, you can point the finger anyplace you want.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when settlers came down from Europe to give them the boot and steal their land.

I don't see any Palestinian aggression here.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is what I mean when I say you shift the timeline without a time reference.

If you want to start history someplace in the middle of your choice, you can point the finger anyplace you want.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not you start today, yesterday, 50 years ago, 100 years ago → or 900 years ago, → the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty or governmental control over anyplace in the Vilayet of Beirut or the Sanjak of Jerusalem (today's Israel and Lebanon).

The inhabitants of the Vilayet of Beirut or the Sanjak of Jerusalem (today's Israel and Lebanon) were considered were not friendly but aligned with the Central - then - Axis Powers in both the Great War (WWI) and WWII, respectively.

In 1918 the Ottoman Empire surrendered the region, in its entirety, to the Allied Powers.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when settlers came down from Europe to give them the boot and steal their land.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, I've heard that before. The Arab Palestinians were first place under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and then the Allied Civil Administration established by the Mandate Authority.

The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Arab League from the date of the Ottoman surrender (Armistice of Mudros) until the Arab League appointed the PLO sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - resolution (28 October 1974). This was well after the Six Day War. The Arab Palestinians (PLO) did not declare independence until November 1988 → 70 years after the Armistice of Mudros.

The Jewish Immigrants did not "give them the boot" or "steal their land." The time period implied was actually considered to have started sometime after the adoption of UN Resolution 181 (II) in November 1988.

I don't see any Palestinian aggression here.

(COMMENT)

The acts of aggression (Definition of Aggression A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974) [armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against Israelis] began with the rise of Arab Palestinian terrorist bands (first was the Palestinian Black Hand).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

This is what I mean when I say you shift the timeline without a time reference.

If you want to start history someplace in the middle of your choice, you can point the finger anyplace you want.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not you start today, yesterday, 50 years ago, 100 years ago → or 900 years ago, → the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty or governmental control over anyplace in the Vilayet of Beirut or the Sanjak of Jerusalem (today's Israel and Lebanon).

The inhabitants of the Vilayet of Beirut or the Sanjak of Jerusalem (today's Israel and Lebanon) were considered were not friendly but aligned with the Central - then - Axis Powers in both the Great War (WWI) and WWII, respectively.

In 1918 the Ottoman Empire surrendered the region, in its entirety, to the Allied Powers.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when settlers came down from Europe to give them the boot and steal their land.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, I've heard that before. The Arab Palestinians were first place under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and then the Allied Civil Administration established by the Mandate Authority.

The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Arab League from the date of the Ottoman surrender (Armistice of Mudros) until the Arab League appointed the PLO sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - resolution (28 October 1974). This was well after the Six Day War. The Arab Palestinians (PLO) did not declare independence until November 1988 → 70 years after the Armistice of Mudros.

The Jewish Immigrants did not "give them the boot" or "steal their land." The time period implied was actually considered to have started sometime after the adoption of UN Resolution 181 (II) in November 1988.

I don't see any Palestinian aggression here.

(COMMENT)

The acts of aggression (Definition of Aggression A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974) [armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against Israelis] began with the rise of Arab Palestinian terrorist bands (first was the Palestinian Black Hand).

Most Respectfully,
R

Doesn't change my post any.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You may say that it doesn't change your post, but that does not mean your post is accurate or true.

Doesn't change my post any.

(COMMENT)

All three of your points have been shown → to have serious flaws in them.

• No matter the point on the time line, your assertion that the Jewish People invaded the Arabs is 100% inaccurate.

• No matter the period, the implication that the Jewish People came from Europe and displaced the Arab and stole land is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• By the time that the culture of the Arab Palestinian evolved, the Israelis were not the aggressors and the Arab Palestinians were not peaceful people. Twice in the 20th Century, they sided against the Allied Powers and were known for promoting and inciting terrorist action (both the Grand Mufti and the Islamic Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).​

Just because I cannot open your eyes to the truth, does not mean the truth is not there to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when settlers came down from Europe to give them the boot and steal their land.

I don't see any Palestinian aggression here.

The Arab Palestinians were "at home" minding their own business, with no thought to self-determination, government, sovereignty, or even distinct identity because they were comfortably part of the larger Arab world and perfectly content to be ruled by "others" as long as those "others" are Arab Muslim.

Arab Palestinian aggression isn't a response to removal or denial of self-determination. Its a response to Jews.

 

[rylah]

874563

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

You've rendered a loaded question. It was not Israel that was the aggressor.

So, what would be legitimate resistance to Israel's violent aggression?

Give me some eexamples.

(COMMENT)

But even more than that, your question shows an absolute and complete failure to understand a very basic Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. [A/RES/2625 (XXV)]

◈ Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

◈ States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiatsticion, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

◈ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within iuts territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

The Israelis did not engage the Arab Palestinians first. It was the other way around. In terms of the conflict relative to the territories, the conflict was originally spirited between the Israelis and the Jordanians (over the West Bank and Jerusalem) and the Israelis and Egyptians (over the Gaza Strip).

The at the time of the conflict (Six Day War of 1967) the Palestinians did not declare independence until 1988; twenty years later.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you want to start history someplace in the middle of your choice, you can point the finger anyplace you want.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when settlers came down from Europe to give them the boot and steal their land.

I don't see any Palestinian aggression here.

Only if You call expelling their Jewish neighbors around the entire middle east
"minding their own business".

Not a single bullet was shot before the Arabs expelled the Jews from all of their holy cities.
That it were the Arabs who eventually got the boot and defeated was an act of historic justice.

You'll keep running like a scared duck trying to sweep that under the carpet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

You may say that it doesn't change your post, but that does not mean your post is accurate or true.

Doesn't change my post any.

(COMMENT)

All three of your points have been shown → to have serious flaws in them.

• No matter the point on the time line, your assertion that the Jewish People invaded the Arabs is 100% inaccurate.

• No matter the period, the implication that the Jewish People came from Europe and displaced the Arab and stole land is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• By the time that the culture of the Arab Palestinian evolved, the Israelis were not the aggressors and the Arab Palestinians were not peaceful people. Twice in the 20th Century, they sided against the Allied Powers and were known for promoting and inciting terrorist action (both the Grand Mufti and the Islamic Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).​

Just because I cannot open your eyes to the truth, does not mean the truth is not there to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

My post is correct. I am using recorded history. You are using Israeli talking points.

 

[Mindful]

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

You may say that it doesn't change your post, but that does not mean your post is accurate or true.

Doesn't change my post any.

(COMMENT)

All three of your points have been shown → to have serious flaws in them.

• No matter the point on the time line, your assertion that the Jewish People invaded the Arabs is 100% inaccurate.

• No matter the period, the implication that the Jewish People came from Europe and displaced the Arab and stole land is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• By the time that the culture of the Arab Palestinian evolved, the Israelis were not the aggressors and the Arab Palestinians were not peaceful people. Twice in the 20th Century, they sided against the Allied Powers and were known for promoting and inciting terrorist action (both the Grand Mufti and the Islamic Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).​

Just because I cannot open your eyes to the truth, does not mean the truth is not there to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

My post is correct. I am using recorded history. You are using Israeli talking points.

What's your version of events?

 

[rylah]

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

You may say that it doesn't change your post, but that does not mean your post is accurate or true.

Doesn't change my post any.

(COMMENT)

All three of your points have been shown → to have serious flaws in them.

• No matter the point on the time line, your assertion that the Jewish People invaded the Arabs is 100% inaccurate.

• No matter the period, the implication that the Jewish People came from Europe and displaced the Arab and stole land is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• By the time that the culture of the Arab Palestinian evolved, the Israelis were not the aggressors and the Arab Palestinians were not peaceful people. Twice in the 20th Century, they sided against the Allied Powers and were known for promoting and inciting terrorist action (both the Grand Mufti and the Islamic Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).​

Just because I cannot open your eyes to the truth, does not mean the truth is not there to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

My post is correct. I am using recorded history. You are using Israeli talking points.

That bubble is too easy to burst.

The Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews before Zionism are all recorded history,
but You're too dishonest to face the facts that put Your beloved losers
in direct responsibility for their own defeat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You may say that it doesn't change your post, but that does not mean your post is accurate or true.

Doesn't change my post any.

(COMMENT)

All three of your points have been shown → to have serious flaws in them.

• No matter the point on the time line, your assertion that the Jewish People invaded the Arabs is 100% inaccurate.

• No matter the period, the implication that the Jewish People came from Europe and displaced the Arab and stole land is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• By the time that the culture of the Arab Palestinian evolved, the Israelis were not the aggressors and the Arab Palestinians were not peaceful people. Twice in the 20th Century, they sided against the Allied Powers and were known for promoting and inciting terrorist action (both the Grand Mufti and the Islamic Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).​

Just because I cannot open your eyes to the truth, does not mean the truth is not there to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

My post is correct. I am using recorded history. You are using Israeli talking points.

No fair, only Muslims get to invade and displace, eh?