Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

At the outset, the Opening Remarks admits that the US does not have an official (public) Policy on Palestine. So you might actually see this discussion as a "Supernatural" Issue (said in a humorous tone).

​

(COMMENT)
.
One might think from an academic perspective that the US Government must actually have a policy. IF the US must have such a policy, THEN what drives that requirement.

Well, in fact, the US is not required to have any such policy. And no such policy can be algebraically deduced by the assimilation of other policies in proximity. The US cannot be criticized for a policy it does not have. (The political ghost in the political machine.)

Most academics and diplomats view the necessity of political policy, and

SOURCE: Hyperpolitics: an interactive dictionary of
political science concepts / Mauro Calise and
Theodore J. Lowi. © 2010 by The University of Chicago, pp 183
​

its constituent parts, in a pre-20th Century form → two-dimensionally. They neither see the depth nor forecast the temporal effects of a set policy, or the absence of a set policy, on the future. And that is what makes this particular presentation diagnostically interesting. Because the opening admits that the US does not have a policy and therefore must be derived in a three-dimensional fashion (three layers on top of each other).

What the listener takes away from this presentation is virtually nothing more than what they brought to the table.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

At the outset, the Opening Remarks admits that the US does not have an official (public) Policy on Palestine. So you might actually see this discussion as a "Supernatural" Issue (said in a humorous tone).

(COMMENT)
.
One might think from an academic perspective that the US Government must actually have a policy. IF the US must have such a policy, THEN what drives that requirement.

Well, in fact, the US is not required to have any such policy. And no such policy can be algebraically deduced by the assimilation of other policies in proximity. The US cannot be criticized for a policy it does not have. (The political ghost in the political machine.)

Most academics and diplomats view the necessity of political policy, and

View attachment 562403
SOURCE: Hyperpolitics: an interactive dictionary of
political science concepts / Mauro Calise and
Theodore J. Lowi. © 2010 by The University of Chicago, pp 183
​

its constituent parts, in a pre-20th Century form → two-dimensionally. They neither see the depth nor forecast the temporal effects of a set policy, or the absence of a set policy, on the future. And that is what makes this particular presentation diagnostically interesting. Because the opening admits that the US does not have a policy and therefore must be derived in a three-dimensional fashion (three layers on top of each other).

What the listener takes away from this presentation is virtually nothing more than what they brought to the table.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does the US have a Palestine policy?

The Israel policy is to shovel money and weapons to Israel and let them kill as many Palestinians as they want.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: US - Israeli Agreement
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and Israel set the funding levels at ≈ $3.3 billion in Foreign Military (FMS) potential @ ≈ $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense over each of the next ten years. This has two components to it.

◈ Protecting the greatest ally of the US in the Middle East Region.​

​

◈ Maintaining our greatest ally with the best Qualitative Military Edge (QME) should the need arise to activate the Mutual Defense Pact.​

Does the US have a Palestine policy?

The Israel policy is to shovel money and weapons to Israel and let them kill as many Palestinians as they want.

.
(COMMENT)

The mutual defense pact with Israel has absolutely nothing (whatsoever) to do with the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the Israelis.

Again, this is misinformation that is intended to deceive the audience. It is the type and kind of deceptive advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
It is an HoAP violation of Article 20(2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

This is something we have come to expect from the Arab Palestinians.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The mutual defense pact with Israel has absolutely nothing (whatsoever) to do with the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and the Israelis.

Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.

 

[USAF 2023]

Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.

YAWN…..Israel has no RIGHT TO EXIST which is what “ Right of Return “ is all about
The “ International Community “ recognized a long time ago this is a DOA issue

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Settler colonialism is not a defensive position. It is aggression.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is deceptive misinformation.

There is no "Settler colonialism." Settlements were agreed to by the Arab Palestinians (full control of Area "C").

You want it to be classified as an "Act of Aggression," as a means to justify violence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

YAWN…..Israel has no RIGHT TO EXIST which is what “ Right of Return “ is all about
The “ International Community “ recognized a long time ago this is a DOA issue

Glad Tinmore is laughing. I’m hysterical

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is deceptive misinformation.

There is no "Settler colonialism." Settlements were agreed to by the Arab Palestinians (full control of Area "C").

You want it to be classified as an "Act of Aggression," as a means to justify violence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Settler colonialism started long before Oslo.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Taking Direct Action For Palestine - With Huda Ammori​

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Keynote Address​

 

[USAF 2023]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Keynote Address​

YAWN…. How many times has he posted the same thing over and over? Lol

 

[USAF 2023]

YAWN…. How many times has he posted the same thing over and over? Lol

At least he stopped posting the Link where the HASIDIC RABBI and HAMAS were dancing because they BOTH agreed Israel didn’t have the right to exist
I exposed him for the LIAR that he is

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium - Human rights: Rhetoric vs Reality​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Israeli Rights and Obligations​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?​

 

[USAF 2023]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?​

YAWN…..

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ et al,

For those of you that know me (from past commentaries), I normally promote the reading of viewing anti-Israeli --- pro-Palestinian propaganda. It is important to understand the opposing point of view.

This is one of those rare cases that I (unequivocally) express my (personal) view that it is a waste of time.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Israeli Rights and Obligations​

(COMMENT)
.
Professor Michael Lynk travels back in time to demonize the practices that were acceptable in their day. (Scottland, Ireland, Canada, Algeria, South Africa, the Baltic States and the Western Sahara) just to name a few. Of course, Professor Lynk purposely avoids the historical fact that the Arab Palestinians never actually had any sovereign control over the territory in question.

Dimitri Lascaris is a Canadian Lawyer, closet journalist, and anti-Israeli activist from Montreal. He wants you to believe that the one million (plus) descentants of the displaced Palestines (even though they have never actually lived in Israel) have a riight to return to what they Gazan consider their country. I'm not exactly sure how many of our readers are native Americans. But a vast majority of American are descendents from other lands. I'm Ito-Americano (Italian American). Supose the 6% of the Americans who hold Italian descent (approx 17 Million) were to demand a right to return to Italy (having a polulation of about 60 million). That would change the demographic over night with the Ito-Americano being almost a quarter of the population.

There is no suchthing as a blanket Right-of-Return (RoR). Dimitri would have you believe that A/RES/194 "guarantees the RoR for the Palestinians. Well, A/RES/194 IS NOT LAW. It guarantees nothing. AND, equally important is the fact that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) says something different.

◈ General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194​

​

✦ Is a non-binding resolution.​

​

✦ A/RES/194 of December 1948, cannot be made binding on a situation retroactively. The central theme and basic principle of legality or nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. ​

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) ​

​

Article 12​

​

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​

​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​

​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​

​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

Every ordinary person can see the two problems here:​

​

✦ Article 2(7) of the UN Charter says:​

​

✧ Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

​

✧ The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. Para 13b • A/AC.21/10. 16 February 1948​

​

✧ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child. Para 13g • A/AC.21/10. 16 February 1948​

Another point that the pro-Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israel compact always avoid is that the matter of the definition of a "refugee." While the pro-Arab Palestinians and the anti-Israel compact want to use the eligibility criteria for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) serivices, that is not a legal definition. That would make the Arab Palestinians dislaced a special case, different from every other refugee in the world. And while the Arab Palestinian like to think of themselves as different or spcial, they are not. For instance, the Jordanians gave the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem citizenship on the annexation of that territory.

Generally Speaking, the Arab Palestinians ceased to be refugees:

◈ When the Arab Palestinians lost his nationality, then voluntarily reacquired it through Egypt or Jordan.​

​

◈ When the Arab Palestinians has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality;​

​

◈ When the Arab Palestinians, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the Israeli Civil Administration;​

(Ω )

I'm not saying you should not watch the video. But it will be an hour I'll never get back from what little time I have remaining, AND, the blood I lost when I banged my head on the desk.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

YAWN…..

A silly youtube video that P T Tinmore dumps multiple times into multiple threads.