Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[Hollie]

Netanyahu defending Israel for its retaliation aimed at Islamic terrorists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

You should remain silent, then.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Another of your pointless slogans.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF you are going to use the terminology, THEN you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.

​

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​

​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​

​

Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.

(COMMENT)

While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.

I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law. Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law. They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options (choice of means, and moment for deliberation).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Another Israeli lie. Never happened.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF you are going to use the terminology, THEN you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.

​

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​

​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​

​

Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.

(COMMENT)

While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.

I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law. Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law. They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options (choice of means, and moment for deliberation).

Most Respectfully,
R

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).

I can agree with that.

 

[Hollie]

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Another Israeli lie. Never happened.

Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF you are going to use the terminology, THEN you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.

​

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​

​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​

​

Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.

(COMMENT)

While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.

I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law. Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law. They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options (choice of means, and moment for deliberation).

Most Respectfully,
R

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).

I can agree with that.

Self defense?

“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul

Odd, but if one chooses to compare the socio-economic successes of Israel vs. “Islam” and the mini-caliphates in Gaza and the West Bank, well, post your favorite YouTube video.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Another Israeli lie. Never happened.

Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.

 

[Hollie]

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Another Israeli lie. Never happened.

Unsubstantiated Islamist talking point

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.

What right of return? That’s another of your silly slogans.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF you are going to use the terminology, THEN you should know what it means. Under International Law, "self-defense has a specific meaning.

​

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).​

​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition, 2009, Page 549, Oxford University Press, Inc.,​

​

Each person has his own idea of self-defense. It is not up to me to say.

(COMMENT)

While each person does have a layman's perspective, there are cases in which the judicial system has made a very definite ruling for people like yourself to better understand.

I cannot find a single engagement between Israeli Forces and the various factions of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in which the initiated hostilities, since the Oslo Accords, that fit the Customary and International Law. Nor do any of the major terrorist incidents since the 1972 Olympic Massacre by the HoAP that fit the definition.

Palestinian Leaders have been offered various opportunities for peaceful solutions under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The Arab Palestinians, no matter the faction, have the duty to fulfill in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law. They cannot claim "self-defense" if they have not availed themselves of those options (choice of means, and moment for deliberation).

Most Respectfully,
R

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules on self-defense: self-defense is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation . . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4. See Jennings, The Caroline, and McLeod Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals, and Self-Defense: The Customary Law, 66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ).

I can agree with that.

Self defense?

“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul

Odd, but if one chooses to compare the socio-economic successes of Israel vs. “Islam” and the mini-caliphates in Gaza and the West Bank, well, post your favorite YouTube video.

I thought that would send you scurrying for the exit.

 

[Hollie]

“Neutralized” means they took his gee-had away and they’re not giving it back.

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

Israel Defense Forces killed a Palestinian terrorist attempting an arson attack with two others just after midnight Thursday morning, Hebrew media reported.

Israeli soldiers spotted three Palestinians in the vicinity of highway 465 in Deir Abu Masha'al, a site of frequent attacks according to an IDF spokesperson’s unit tweet.

 

[Taz]

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.

Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

​

​

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​

​

​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

NOTE: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.

(COMMENT)

As you can see from the Preamble (supra) "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century). The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained. As Paul Harvey used to say: And now for the rest of the story.

Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

​

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.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

​

​

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​

​

​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

NOTE: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.

(COMMENT)

As you can see from the Preamble (supra) "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century). The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained. As Paul Harvey used to say: And now for the rest of the story.

Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

​

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.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK! And?