Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli-Palestinian Panel Discussion​

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Marc Lamont Hill Discusses Conflict Between Israel & Palestine​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Marc Lamont Hill, Noura Erakat and Aja Monet on Black-Palestinian Solidarity​

 

[RoccoR]

'Erakat - Halper - Kuttab'

(COMMENT)

Let us get to the point.

This is confusing to me. They say that the Zionist are NOT a legitimate side --- yet! they want to dismantle Israel under the guise of decolonization Movement ("the only way to go") and reject the Two-State Solution. The concept of Israel is a bit different from the concept of a Jewish National Home. Most zionists are Israeli, but all Israelis are not zionists. (Israelis ≠ Zionists).

Ms Noura Erakat, esq, admits that the the Palestinians got exactly what the Oslo Accords promised. That is an important point. But, you have to dig for it. Ms Erakat also stipulates that the Oslo Accords and the Two-State Solution are not the same thing. Ms Erakat see the current path as a rejection of Palestinians as a people (she used the term peopleness). That if the current developments follow the same pathway, it will result in the "annihilation of the Palestinians." (She was Speaking in the context of assimilation.)

Jeff Halper claimed that the Two-State Solution was mythological. It was the wrong paradigm to begin with. The idea of the current situation as being a "conflict" (Arab-Israeli Conflict • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, etc...) is a misnomer. To have a conflict, there has to be two sides. Halper calls this a "misanalysis" from the beginning. He says that the Settler-Colonial Movement is an attempt to Judaize the territory. He makes the point that the colonization was "unilateral" and did not ask the people.

---

---

Ms Erakat freely admits that she does not have a solution. She made the point that "the land does not belong to the Palestinians, the Palestinians belong to the land. The flaw here is that the conflict is more about what government exercises sovereignty. It does not affect the heritage of the people or their theory of land association.

This is one of the few presentations by Noura Erakat that I did not object to in the very beginning.

Jeff Halper makes his flaw right off the bench. He forwards the idea that it is not a conflict because there are NOT two sides. He calls it a "situation." Well!, IF this is true THEN it is a Civil War (Non-International Armed Conflict). And IF this is true, THEN it is a domestic issue and that means:

Article 2(7), UN Charter.​

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 adoption of the idea that it is some form of apartheid and only involves the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, involving one jurisdiction then the UN has no real jurisdiction.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem (formerly citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom), would not be considered refugees. IF the Arab Palestinians claim "occupation" THEN there are (at least) two jurisdiction involved. It becomes very difficult to intelligently discuss possible solutions because the Arab Palestinians (themselves) cannot agree on the situation.

Just the Way I See It,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is confusing to me. They say that the Zionist are NOT a legitimate side --- yet!

There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.

A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: If the world. only worked that way.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is an utopian idea!

There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.

A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.

(COMMENT)

No matter how much you want this to be true in the world, it simply is not true. All you have to do is look at Tabet, the South China Sea, the Crimea and now the Ukraine. And the Ukraine has the Budapest Memorandum (1994) wherein the Russian "promised" not to use its weapons against the Ukraine. ("and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence")

These nice platitudes you post are OK in the classroom, but are not written in stone in the outside real-world → the Budapest Memorandum being the latest case in point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

There was a lot in this brilliant talk and you seem to have many concerns. So I will break it down into more understandable pieces.

A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.

That oft-used, cut and paste rant needs a refresh.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep saying that " Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun." Well let us correct the record right now...

In 1967, Israel militarily engaged the hostile forces of the Arab Legion (Jordanian Armed Forces); NOT the military of some mythological force of today's Hostile Arab Palestinian. Between 1967 and 1988, the Israeli's occupied Jordanian sovereign territory in the West Bank. It was NOT the sovereign territory of some mythological nation of Palestine. Ask any West Bank adult that lived in the West Bank in 1967. They were Jordanian Citizens.

A government derives its legitimacy from the concent of the governed. The Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. The vast majority of people did not consent to this government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ms Noura Erakat, esq, admits that the the Palestinians got exactly what the Oslo Accords promised. That is an important point. But, you have to dig for it. Ms Erakat also stipulates that the Oslo Accords and the Two-State Solution are not the same thing.

The Oslo Accords never mentioned a state. Nor did it mention rights or international law. They were based on the Bantustan constitutions in S. Africa. That is what the Palestinians got. Bantustans. The PA is a Bantustan government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep saying that " Israeli government was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun." Well let us correct the record right now...

In 1967, Israel militarily engaged the hostile forces of the Arab Legion (Jordanian Armed Forces); NOT the military of some mythological force of today's Hostile Arab Palestinian. Between 1967 and 1988, the Israeli's occupied Jordanian sovereign territory in the West Bank. It was NOT the sovereign territory of some mythological nation of Palestine. Ask any West Bank adult that lived in the West Bank in 1967. They were Jordanian Citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about 1967.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ms Erakat freely admits that she does not have a solution. She made the point that "the land does not belong to the Palestinians, the Palestinians belong to the land. The flaw here is that the conflict is more about what government exercises sovereignty. It does not affect the heritage of the people or their theory of land association.

It is an old Indian term. The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land. The Allied Powers defined the territory and the people who lived there got nationality, citizenship, and sovereignty of that land.

The Palestinians belong to that land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ms Erakat see the current path as a rejection of Palestinians as a people (she used the term peopleness).

Israel has always denied the existence of Palestinians and Palestine.

Now the Palestinians only exist as part of Israel terrorist propaganda campaign.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: If the world. only worked that way.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is an utopian idea!


(COMMENT)

No matter how much you want this to be true in the world, it simply is not true. All you have to do is look at Tabet, the South China Sea, the Crimea and now the Ukraine. And the Ukraine has the Budapest Memorandum (1994) wherein the Russian "promised" not to use its weapons against the Ukraine. ("and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence")

These nice platitudes you post are OK in the classroom, but are not written in stone in the outside real-world → the Budapest Memorandum being the latest case in point.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!

What does that have to do with my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jeff Halper makes his flaw right off the bench. He forwards the idea that it is not a conflict because there are NOT two sides. He calls it a "situation." Well!, IF this is true THEN it is a Civil War

A settler colonial project is not one side of a civil war.

 

[USAF 2023]

Israel has always denied the existence of Palestinians and Palestine.

Now the Palestinians only exist as part of Israel terrorist propaganda campaign.

The Palestinians have denied the existence of the Israelis
As per Hamas PM in 2013 Haniyeh
“ We had two Wars but Palestine did not and will not recognize Israel “

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians Created the Conflict
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

.

The Oslo Accords never mentioned a state. Nor did it mention rights or international law. They were based on the Bantustan constitutions in S. Africa. That is what the Palestinians got. Bantustans. The PA is a Bantustan government.

(COMMENT)

That is correct. I say again, that is correct. It established Areas: "A". "B". and "C"

In Area C, during the first phase of redeployment Israel will transfer to the Council civil powers and responsibilities not relating to territory, as set out in Annex III.

The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred.

The Arab Palestinians DID agree to the Special Provision over Area "C."

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Yeh, I am easily confused since you do not articulate your time frame. But anything prior to the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the British Mandate. There was no Israel.

Anything after the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the, including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper War was a continuation of the Arab League-Israeli War. The first Peace Treaty was not signed until:

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •​

​

THEN CAME:​

​

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (1980)•​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law (1981) •​

​

◈ Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I) (1993)​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II) (1995) •​

◈ Letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (2000) •​

Some of the Links do not work because the UN took-down the database for routine maintenance (so they say). But the peace process really did not start until 1979; beginning with the Treaty with Egypt.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeh, I am easily confused since you do not articulate your time frame. But anything prior to the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the British Mandate. There was no Israel.

Yes, but the settler colonial project had already begun.

 

[USAF 2023]

The Palestinians have denied the existence of the Israelis
As per Hamas PM in 2013 Haniyeh
“ We had two Wars but Palestine did not and will not recognize Israel “

Thank you for agreeing with me that they will not recognize Israel. Just add that to the list of why the Israelis will never capitulate to their Demands !

 

[P F Tinmore]

Anything after the Arab League Invasion/Israeli War for Independence was under the, including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper War was a continuation of the Arab League-Israeli War. The first Peace Treaty was not signed until:

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •

Had nothing to do with Palestine.