Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Civil Rights, Community Orgs Call on SFSU to Support Rabab Abdulhadi

Palestine Legal, along with 19 other local and national civil rights, community, and educational organizations, has urged San Francisco State University to publicly defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi against a years-long campaign of harassment, threats, and legal bullying.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

 

[rylah]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

Yeah a "legislator' who's a member of a militant Communist group that hijacked planes,
murdered 2 students in Jerusalem market, and runs camps teaching kids how to stab and shoot mk-47's

She and her fellow Jihadi filth should rot in jail with no sunlight.

 

[Mindful]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

Why did they do that, Tinmore?

 

[rylah]

Civil Rights, Community Orgs Call on SFSU to Support Rabab Abdulhadi

Palestine Legal, along with 19 other local and national civil rights, community, and educational organizations, has urged San Francisco State University to publicly defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi against a years-long campaign of harassment, threats, and legal bullying.

Do you see many "professors" or "civil rights organizations" using Universities to promote
gun violence and holy wars??!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

Why did they do that, Tinmore?

Good question. I don't think she has ever as much as pick up a rock.

 

[Mindful]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

Why did they do that, Tinmore?

Good question. I don't think she has ever as much as pick up a rock.

That another of your non answers?

 

[Mindful]

Palestinian daily likens jihad terrorist to Christ on the cross

OCT 31, 2019 8:00 AM BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS.

Palestinians have long declared that Jesus was a Palestinian. So has Rep. Ilhan Omar.

In exploring some of the roots of how and where Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) came to be deemed a Palestinian, the Israeli monitoring agency Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) exposed a Palestinian Authority TV interview in which author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was asked about his new book Christianity and its Connection to Islam. Ghanadeh stated that he personally heard Yasser Arafat several times affirm that Jesus was the first Palestinian martyr, and the TV host replied: “Jesus was a Palestinian, no one denies that.”

PMW cited the regularity of this declaration by prominent Palestinians, including the Governor of Ramallah Leila Ghannam (“We all have the right to be proud that Jesus is a Palestinian”), senior PA leader Jibril Rajoub (“The greatest Palestinian in history since Jesus is Yasser Arafat“), and an editorial in the PA official daily — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida — that referred to the “holy Trinity” as being Arafat, Abbas and Jesus.

As if this revisionist history were not enough, according to the official Palestinian Authority official daily, Jesus was not only a Palestinian, but a “Palestinian terrorist”:

Official Palestinian daily likens jihad terrorist to Christ on the cross

 

[Coyote]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

“Conversation with Hanan Ashrawi: Reflections on Palestinian Politics and Society”

 

[rylah]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

And instead you've got the return of Arabs back to their shitholes

 

[Coyote]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

 

[USAF 2023]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

You’re “ forgetting “ six little words; “ Live in peace with your neighbors”

Keep posting.!

How many have not?

On Nakba Day, Hamas and Islamic Jihad vow to 'liberate Palestine'

Does this answer your question?

 

[USAF 2023]

Maybe this will. As usual. there will be no response

 

[USAF 2023]

Palestinian Media Portrays Killer of Israeli Teen as Jesus

Go make " peace" with these animals

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rev. Naim Ateek - A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation

 

[rylah]

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

Return IF they actually had lived there...not down through the generatations. And keep in mind, if you regard it as a generational right it would have to include tbe rights of Jews to return as well.

Do you mean the Jews after 70 years or after 3000 years?

I have never opposed the return of the Jews to Arab countries.

So what is the magical date?

That is the problem here. Factions are full of magical dates.

There is a magical date after which people are not given a right of return.

There is a magical date after which people are not allowed to call themselves a people.

There are magical dates after which or before which people are denied the right to identify with a land .

Everyone is an invader but these magical dates, moving targets, serve to make them righteous.

So what is the nagical where upon one is given or denied a "right" of return?

I think we agree that the Palestinians have lived there forever. Some of them were Jews who also had lived there forever. They are the native population.

On the other hand, few if any European Zionists have any ancestors from that area. "Return" is an unusual term to use. So it isn't just a matter of time.

And besides, the Zionists were not immigrants.

Well it may be convenient to assume that, but its complete none sense to claim that Arabs who cannot even properly pronounce the name of the place "forever lived there". Let alone their insistence on referring to themselves as "Palestinians" which literally means 'INVADERS' in the language of the place.

On the other hand, those whom you call 'European Zionist' are not only a vivid historic example of one of the longest connections between a people and a land, which is common knowledge for anyone who's last two brain cells haven't yet been ruined by consumption of Arab propaganda and banging their heads on the floor, but also have detailed family trees that connect them not only to the land, but as far as back to the royal Davidic line.

But who are we to argue with your "expert" opinion, right?