Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

Oh, this you get wrong all the time.

The term "Colonialism" is not a "legal" term. "Colonialism" is a political term.

For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary.

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.

◈ The far-flung lands that constitute an empire may be integrated equally in economic and political terms with the original homeland, the motive for imperial expansion being the spreading of a way of life or of a political design, or merely the distancing of external borders, and thus military danger, from the heartland.

SOURCE:
A Dictionary of Modern Politics: David Professor Robertson ...
Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreDictionary-Modern-Politics-Professor-Robertson/dp/185743093X
A Dictionary of Modern Politics [David Professor Robertson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A comprehensive guide to the complex ideology/terminology which surrounds the world of politics. * Well over 500 extensive definitions * Defines political theories.
​

The Haganah (as an Israeli shadow Militia) did not developed a defensive posture until the Arab riots in 1920 and 1921.

That was after the start of their settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)
As you know very well, immigration authorized by the Allied Powers is NOT colonialism. Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh, this you get wrong all the time.

The term "Colonialism" is not a "legal" term. "Colonialism" is a political term.

For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary.

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.

◈ The far-flung lands that constitute an empire may be integrated equally in economic and political terms with the original homeland, the motive for imperial expansion being the spreading of a way of life or of a political design, or merely the distancing of external borders, and thus military danger, from the heartland.

SOURCE:
A Dictionary of Modern Politics: David Professor Robertson ...
Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreDictionary-Modern-Politics-Professor-Robertson/dp/185743093X
A Dictionary of Modern Politics [David Professor Robertson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A comprehensive guide to the complex ideology/terminology which surrounds the world of politics. * Well over 500 extensive definitions * Defines political theories.
​

The Haganah (as an Israeli shadow Militia) did not developed a defensive posture until the Arab riots in 1920 and 1921.

That was after the start of their settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)
As you know very well, immigration authorized by the Allied Powers is NOT colonialism. Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

(ANSWER)

Britain could not possibly have imposed immigration on Palestine. The Allied Powers agreed to entrust to a Mandatory of their choosing to the administration of the Territory of Palestine; which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

IF the immigration was imposed at a point of a gun, THEN the British were holding the gun to their own head. They were the authority granted by the Allied Powers forging the future of the territory being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were the habitual residents of the territory under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration ( OETA) in April 1920 when the Allied Powers made their decisions. The Treaty authority stated:

ARTICLE I6 Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

(COMMENT)

This is the aspect the Arab Palestinians never understood. It was NOT sovereign Arab Palestinian territory when immigration by the Jewish people began for the establishment and reconstituting in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

That is not all (wait for it)!

Immigration was a strategy of the Allied Powers → passed to the Government of Palestine (the British) → and to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

IF anyone was holding a gun, THEN it was the Arab Palestinians who shot themselves in the foot (several times)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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

Oh, this you get wrong all the time.

The term "Colonialism" is not a "legal" term. "Colonialism" is a political term.

For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary.

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.

◈ The far-flung lands that constitute an empire may be integrated equally in economic and political terms with the original homeland, the motive for imperial expansion being the spreading of a way of life or of a political design, or merely the distancing of external borders, and thus military danger, from the heartland.

SOURCE:
A Dictionary of Modern Politics: David Professor Robertson ...
Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreDictionary-Modern-Politics-Professor-Robertson/dp/185743093X
A Dictionary of Modern Politics [David Professor Robertson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A comprehensive guide to the complex ideology/terminology which surrounds the world of politics. * Well over 500 extensive definitions * Defines political theories.
​

The Haganah (as an Israeli shadow Militia) did not developed a defensive posture until the Arab riots in 1920 and 1921.

That was after the start of their settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)
As you know very well, immigration authorized by the Allied Powers is NOT colonialism. Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

You can’t “impose” immigration. That would be forced transfer of population. All a government can do is permit or restrict immigration. (Perfectly legal, btw.)

The British Mandate was charged with the obligation to facilitate Jewish return and self-determination in their homeland, with the full support of the international community of the time.

Arabs have absolutely no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

They may have a right to their own self-determination, but they have no right to prevent another’s.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

(ANSWER)

Britain could not possibly have imposed immigration on Palestine. The Allied Powers agreed to entrust to a Mandatory of their choosing to the administration of the Territory of Palestine; which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

IF the immigration was imposed at a point of a gun, THEN the British were holding the gun to their own head. They were the authority granted by the Allied Powers forging the future of the territory being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were the habitual residents of the territory under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration ( OETA) in April 1920 when the Allied Powers made their decisions. The Treaty authority stated:

ARTICLE I6 Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

(COMMENT)

This is the aspect the Arab Palestinians never understood. It was NOT sovereign Arab Palestinian territory when immigration by the Jewish people began for the establishment and reconstituting in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

That is not all (wait for it)!

Immigration was a strategy of the Allied Powers → passed to the Government of Palestine (the British) → and to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

IF anyone was holding a gun, THEN it was the Arab Palestinians who shot themselves in the foot (several times)

Most Respectfully,
R

Immigration was a strategy of the Allied Powers → passed to the Government of Palestine (the British) → and to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

That's what I said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh, this you get wrong all the time.

The term "Colonialism" is not a "legal" term. "Colonialism" is a political term.

For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary.

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.

◈ The far-flung lands that constitute an empire may be integrated equally in economic and political terms with the original homeland, the motive for imperial expansion being the spreading of a way of life or of a political design, or merely the distancing of external borders, and thus military danger, from the heartland.

SOURCE:
A Dictionary of Modern Politics: David Professor Robertson ...
Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreDictionary-Modern-Politics-Professor-Robertson/dp/185743093X
A Dictionary of Modern Politics [David Professor Robertson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A comprehensive guide to the complex ideology/terminology which surrounds the world of politics. * Well over 500 extensive definitions * Defines political theories.
​

The Haganah (as an Israeli shadow Militia) did not developed a defensive posture until the Arab riots in 1920 and 1921.

That was after the start of their settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)
As you know very well, immigration authorized by the Allied Powers is NOT colonialism. Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

You can’t “impose” immigration. That would be forced transfer of population. All a government can do is permit or restrict immigration. (Perfectly legal, btw.)

The British Mandate was charged with the obligation to facilitate Jewish return and self-determination in their homeland, with the full support of the international community of the time.

Arabs have absolutely no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

They may have a right to their own self-determination, but they have no right to prevent another’s.

Arabs have absolutely no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

The problem is that the so called Jewish homeland is inside Palestine's international borders.

 

[RoccoR]

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

We've covered this ground many times. Inside the "Palestine's international borders" sounds like one thing but actually means something else entirely.

Article 16 handed the rights and title to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed the authority to recognize the boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

The Arab Palestinians make a claim to the territory, that they never had in the first place. The boundaries were set by the Allied Powers, they can be erased by the Allied Powers.

The problem is that the so called Jewish homeland is inside Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Sometimes, territories for various reasons are carved-up.

◈ Abyssinia was a country once composed of Eritrea and Ethiopia.

◈ Austro-Hungarian Empire (one of four Empires that fell in WWI) once consisted of Austria and Hungary, parts of the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy, Romania, and the Balkans.

◈ The break-up of the Soviet Union into Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldovia, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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

Oh, this you get wrong all the time.

The term "Colonialism" is not a "legal" term. "Colonialism" is a political term.

For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary.

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.

◈ The far-flung lands that constitute an empire may be integrated equally in economic and political terms with the original homeland, the motive for imperial expansion being the spreading of a way of life or of a political design, or merely the distancing of external borders, and thus military danger, from the heartland.

SOURCE:
A Dictionary of Modern Politics: David Professor Robertson ...
Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreDictionary-Modern-Politics-Professor-Robertson/dp/185743093X
A Dictionary of Modern Politics [David Professor Robertson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A comprehensive guide to the complex ideology/terminology which surrounds the world of politics. * Well over 500 extensive definitions * Defines political theories.
​

The Haganah (as an Israeli shadow Militia) did not developed a defensive posture until the Arab riots in 1920 and 1921.

That was after the start of their settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)
As you know very well, immigration authorized by the Allied Powers is NOT colonialism. Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain imposed their immigration policy on Palestine at the point of a gun.

How is that legal?

You can’t “impose” immigration. That would be forced transfer of population. All a government can do is permit or restrict immigration. (Perfectly legal, btw.)

The British Mandate was charged with the obligation to facilitate Jewish return and self-determination in their homeland, with the full support of the international community of the time.

Arabs have absolutely no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

They may have a right to their own self-determination, but they have no right to prevent another’s.

Arabs have absolutely no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

The problem is that the so called Jewish homeland is inside Palestine's international borders.

This does not create a legal impediment to self-determination or sovereignty. International borders change all the time. All that is required is a treaty. Countries are partitioned all the time. All that is required is a treaty.

Again, Arabs have no right in law, then or now, to prevent Jewish self-determination.

 

[USAF 2023]

Nazi symbol flies over Hamas riot in Gaza Strip

Next we will hear about those " Poor Palestinians" that Israel used " excessive force" on

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

We've covered this ground many times. Inside the "Palestine's international borders" sounds like one thing but actually means something else entirely.

Article 16 handed the rights and title to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed the authority to recognize the boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

The Arab Palestinians make a claim to the territory, that they never had in the first place. The boundaries were set by the Allied Powers, they can be erased by the Allied Powers.

The problem is that the so called Jewish homeland is inside Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Sometimes, territories for various reasons are carved-up.

◈ Abyssinia was a country once composed of Eritrea and Ethiopia.

◈ Austro-Hungarian Empire (one of four Empires that fell in WWI) once consisted of Austria and Hungary, parts of the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy, Romania, and the Balkans.

◈ The break-up of the Soviet Union into Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldovia, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK. How many of those suffered settler colonialism?

 

[rylah]

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

As far as the 1948 War goes, as it relates to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the war was settled by two peace treaties. It was over and done.

It was the Zionists who attacked and expelled the Palestinians in 1948 and continue that practice today.

So don't give me that crap that it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors.

(COMMENT)

You cannot go back that far. And even if you did, the claimant would be 70 years old or better to be a displaced person.

Additionally, refugee status is lost if the applicant has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes. That drops out almost every single one has violated either the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938), or they have violated one or more of the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

By convention, there is no obligation for Israel to allow any criminal to enter their sovereign territory. And every single one of the fake peaceful demonstrators has disqualified themselves. But I did not see any demonstrators of 70 years of age or older.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still playing the terrorist card on self defense, I see.

Part of Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

To claim self defense one has to show one's not the aggressor.
You still didn't give the explanation for all the Arab pogroms against Jews prior to Zionism.
Or how one can claim self defense while putting a suicide belt on one's own child...

Though I agree - terrorists is a term too noble than they really deserve,
'invading savages' more likely to fit the camel urine drinkers.

Which Arabs?

These Arabs, and the rest of them who followed suite, by simultaneously attacking the oldest Jewish communities throughout the Caliphate.

Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

As far as the 1948 War goes, as it relates to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the war was settled by two peace treaties. It was over and done.

It was the Zionists who attacked and expelled the Palestinians in 1948 and continue that practice today.

So don't give me that crap that it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors.

(COMMENT)

You cannot go back that far. And even if you did, the claimant would be 70 years old or better to be a displaced person.

Additionally, refugee status is lost if the applicant has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes. That drops out almost every single one has violated either the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938), or they have violated one or more of the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

By convention, there is no obligation for Israel to allow any criminal to enter their sovereign territory. And every single one of the fake peaceful demonstrators has disqualified themselves. But I did not see any demonstrators of 70 years of age or older.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still playing the terrorist card on self defense, I see.

Part of Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

To claim self defense one has to show one's not the aggressor.
You still didn't give the explanation for all the Arab pogroms against Jews prior to Zionism.
Or how one can claim self defense while putting a suicide belt on one's own child...

Though I agree - terrorists is a term too noble than they really deserve,
'invading savages' more likely to fit the camel urine drinkers.

Which Arabs?

These Arabs, and the rest of them who followed suite, by simultaneously attacking the oldest Jewish communities throughout the Caliphate.

Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.

A long time ago.

No context.

 

[rylah]

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

As far as the 1948 War goes, as it relates to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the war was settled by two peace treaties. It was over and done.

(COMMENT)

You cannot go back that far. And even if you did, the claimant would be 70 years old or better to be a displaced person.

Additionally, refugee status is lost if the applicant has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes. That drops out almost every single one has violated either the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938), or they have violated one or more of the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

By convention, there is no obligation for Israel to allow any criminal to enter their sovereign territory. And every single one of the fake peaceful demonstrators has disqualified themselves. But I did not see any demonstrators of 70 years of age or older.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still playing the terrorist card on self defense, I see.

Part of Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.

To claim self defense one has to show one's not the aggressor.
You still didn't give the explanation for all the Arab pogroms against Jews prior to Zionism.
Or how one can claim self defense while putting a suicide belt on one's own child...

Though I agree - terrorists is a term too noble than they really deserve,
'invading savages' more likely to fit the camel urine drinkers.

Which Arabs?

These Arabs, and the rest of them who followed suite, by simultaneously attacking the oldest Jewish communities throughout the Caliphate.

Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.

A long time ago.

No context.

Merely 50 years prior to the 1st Zionist immigration.
Context - typical Arab treatment of weakest minorities at the bottom of the social ladder.

This aggression against Jewish communities along with subsequent waves of Arab pogroms throughout the Caliphate, was what caused Jews to organize politically around the world and raise arms for a proper response.

So what was the Arab excuse for attacking them?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Kushner Plan and the Bahrain Economic Workshop: An Official Palestinian Perspective

 

[P F Tinmore]

Empire Files: Inside Palestine’s Refugee Camps

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

Featps://unitedwithisrael.org/shin-bet-thwarts-jerusalem-attack-confiscates-6-6-lb-bomb/?utm_source=Maring PR Blow, Hamas Asks Gaza Border Rioters Not to Fly Swastika Flag

 

[USAF 2023]

Scenes of Injured Gazan Arabs from IDF Snipers are Staged - Welcome to Pallywood

This says it all

 

[P F Tinmore]