Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian farmers work in their farmlands in Beit Lahia, in the northern area of the Gaza Strip.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Deir Ghazaleh, one of the most beautiful villages in the occupied West Bank.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian families, students and workers wait at Qalandiya checkpoint after it was closed by Israeli occupation forces today morning.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

All Israeli leaders, no exception, are war criminals who rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation forces arrest Al - Aqsa Mosque guard Samer Al-Qabbani from one of Al-Aqsa Mosque gates this morning .

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

"J Street" is holding its annual conference from 26-29 October 2019 in Washington, claiming it aims to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, while it actually backs Israel's racist ideologies.

 

[P F Tinmore]

After 35 days of hunger strike, Jordanian-Palestinian prisoner Heba al-Labadi has been transferred to the Israeli hospital of Beni Zion today after her health condition deteriorated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

This little snippet about the all-inclusive set of all (an absolute statement → 100%) "Israeli Leaders" makes for a good bumper sticker or a title to a chapter in a work of fiction. It is even emphasized annotated in the description as being a fact with "no exception or variation."

There are very few things I know of that do not require reasoning. That is some manner of a process that seeks to understand the differences between good and bad - or - sound and valid. Today, we see just so much the nonsense which itself consists of solely of a declarative statement of one single proposition ("Israeli Leader" = "War Criminal"). It does not even pretend to be a presentation of an argument [either demonstrating validity and soundness (deductive) or statements that are rated by their strength in merit (weak → strong or inductive)], which themselves consist of at least two propositions (with each proposition being either true or false - but not both).

All Israeli leaders, no exception, are war criminals who rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

In the opening statement, supra, we see just how ridiculous a literal interpretation of the statement is. Yet, it does have this ring of truth that Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) love to cling. There are two conjunctive simple propositions in this claim unified theme:

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders are War Criminals.

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.​

The question is, of course, one of the wisdom in entangling the twin ethical concept of "War Criminals" with that of the concept of "Slaughtering Palestinians" (both equally ambiguous). And we know that this relationship and entanglement is a fallacy of sorts. The "defeat" of the asymmetric warfare operators (Palestinians) does not equate to a War Crime. The use of the language and the application is not to impart knowledge. There is no question but that it is to "appeal to the emotion" (Vehemence Argument).

The following Essay surveys anew familiar issues in the international law governing the use of force. It concludes that adherence to the requirements of economy of coercion-the principles of necessity and proportionality-holds out the best hope that those using force in self-defense will follow the laws of war while achieving their lawful objectives against those who engage in asymmetrical warfare without regard to such laws.
By Dr. Nicholas Rostow • Director, Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University • Senior Director of the Center for Strategic Research • and a Senior Research Scholar at the Yale Law School.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

This little snippet about the all-inclusive set of all (an absolute statement → 100%) "Israeli Leaders" makes for a good bumper sticker or a title to a chapter in a work of fiction. It is even emphasized annotated in the description as being a fact with "no exception or variation."

There are very few things I know of that do not require reasoning. That is some manner of a process that seeks to understand the differences between good and bad - or - sound and valid. Today, we see just so much the nonsense which itself consists of solely of a declarative statement of one single proposition ("Israeli Leader" = "War Criminal"). It does not even pretend to be a presentation of an argument [either demonstrating validity and soundness (deductive) or statements that are rated by their strength in merit (weak → strong or inductive)], which themselves consist of at least two propositions (with each proposition being either true or false - but not both).

View attachment 288726

All Israeli leaders, no exception, are war criminals who rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

In the opening statement, supra, we see just how ridiculous a literal interpretation of the statement is. Yet, it does have this ring of truth that Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) love to cling. There are two conjunctive simple propositions in this claim unified theme:

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders are War Criminals.

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.​

The question is, of course, one of the wisdom in entangling the twin ethical concept of "War Criminals" with that of the concept of "Slaughtering Palestinians" (both equally ambiguous). And we know that this relationship and entanglement is a fallacy of sorts. The "defeat" of the asymmetric warfare operators (Palestinians) does not equate to a War Crime. The use of the language and the application is not to impart knowledge. There is no question but that it is to "appeal to the emotion" (Vehemence Argument).

The following Essay surveys anew familiar issues in the international law governing the use of force. It concludes that adherence to the requirements of economy of coercion-the principles of necessity and proportionality-holds out the best hope that those using force in self-defense will follow the laws of war while achieving their lawful objectives against those who engage in asymmetrical warfare without regard to such laws.
By Dr. Nicholas Rostow • Director, Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University • Senior Director of the Center for Strategic Research • and a Senior Research Scholar at the Yale Law School.

Most Respectfully,
R

You just believe that Israel can do no wrong.

 

[Shusha]

RE Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

This little snippet about the all-inclusive set of all (an absolute statement → 100%) "Israeli Leaders" makes for a good bumper sticker or a title to a chapter in a work of fiction. It is even emphasized annotated in the description as being a fact with "no exception or variation."

There are very few things I know of that do not require reasoning. That is some manner of a process that seeks to understand the differences between good and bad - or - sound and valid. Today, we see just so much the nonsense which itself consists of solely of a declarative statement of one single proposition ("Israeli Leader" = "War Criminal"). It does not even pretend to be a presentation of an argument [either demonstrating validity and soundness (deductive) or statements that are rated by their strength in merit (weak → strong or inductive)], which themselves consist of at least two propositions (with each proposition being either true or false - but not both).

View attachment 288726

All Israeli leaders, no exception, are war criminals who rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

In the opening statement, supra, we see just how ridiculous a literal interpretation of the statement is. Yet, it does have this ring of truth that Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) love to cling. There are two conjunctive simple propositions in this claim unified theme:

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders are War Criminals.

✦ ALL Israeli Leaders rose to power by slaughtering Palestinians.​

The question is, of course, one of the wisdom in entangling the twin ethical concept of "War Criminals" with that of the concept of "Slaughtering Palestinians" (both equally ambiguous). And we know that this relationship and entanglement is a fallacy of sorts. The "defeat" of the asymmetric warfare operators (Palestinians) does not equate to a War Crime. The use of the language and the application is not to impart knowledge. There is no question but that it is to "appeal to the emotion" (Vehemence Argument).

The following Essay surveys anew familiar issues in the international law governing the use of force. It concludes that adherence to the requirements of economy of coercion-the principles of necessity and proportionality-holds out the best hope that those using force in self-defense will follow the laws of war while achieving their lawful objectives against those who engage in asymmetrical warfare without regard to such laws.
By Dr. Nicholas Rostow • Director, Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University • Senior Director of the Center for Strategic Research • and a Senior Research Scholar at the Yale Law School.

Most Respectfully,
R

You just believe that Israel can do no wrong.

Israel does lots wrong. But we are too busy dealing with the antisemtism and the bullcrap propaganda to actually discuss real issues.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Photos of the house of Palestinian family of Abu Humaid after it was demolished by Israeli forces for the 5th time, in El Amari refugee camp in Al Berih city.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A Palestinian couple heading to their grove to pick olives in Awarta village in Nablus.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

Photos of the house of Palestinian family of Abu Humaid after it was demolished by Israeli forces for the 5th time, in El Amari refugee camp in Al Berih city.

For perspective, lets talk about this family who has had their home destroyed.

There are six male children in this family.

Three are in prison for murdering Israelis. Two are in prison for other serious security offenses. One was killed while he was acting in part of an ambush.

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that home demolition is the morally correct thing to do here. But for those of you who argue that Israel shouldn't be doing these things, please suggest an alternative that Israel can use to deter ENTIRE FAMILIES from this kind of terrorism.

And, Tinmore, please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT come back with "only Israel can end Israel's war". Give us some concrete, morally and legally appropriate ways for Israel to deter or otherwise prevent terrorist acts from Arab Palestinians. (Not that I'm expecting you to actually answer that. You never do.)