The events in Jerusalem

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is so lame... I hope you know what sovereignty means???

The Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginningof the international system with which the discipline deals.

International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain thePeace's significance and its impact on the world today:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of legal equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. These principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as "The Westphalian System"​

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

(COMMENT)

I do not believe that anyone talked about "exemptions" at all. This again is a demonstration of personal conjuring. All people have the exact same rights. There is nothing unique about the Rights of a Palestinian.

I have the absolute right to make Chateaubriand. I an physically able, I have the recipe insttructions, and I have the instruments necessary. Yet, I cannot make a decent Chateaubriand to save my ass. I just don't know how. Just because you all the prerequissites, does not gaurentee the desired outcome.

The Arab Palestinians have ALL the parts → the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, right to national independence and sovereignty, and the inalienable rights; yet, this does not guatentee the outcome desired. Just as the chef like me, that is dumber than a box of rocks in the kitchen, so it has been for more than a century with the (guess who) → The Arab Palestinians. And the attitude of non-cooperation started early on:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. See UK History of Administration October 1947​

BUT , I reiterate that I don't think that anyone (in this discussion group) considered the Arab Palestinians exempt (sic) from any of the 9 core international human rights (IHR) instruments.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

RE: The events in Jerusalem​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is so lame... I hope you know what sovereignty means???

The Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginningof the international system with which the discipline deals.

International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain thePeace's significance and its impact on the world today:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of legal equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. These principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as "The Westphalian System"​

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

(COMMENT)

I do not believe that anyone talked about "exemptions" at all. This again is a demonstration of personal conjuring. All people have the exact same rights. There is nothing unique about the Rights of a Palestinian.

I have the absolute right to make Chateaubriand. I an physically able, I have the recipe insttructions, and I have the instruments necessary. Yet, I cannot make a decent Chateaubriand to save my ass. I just don't know how. Just because you all the prerequissites, does not gaurentee the desired outcome.

The Arab Palestinians have ALL the parts → the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, right to national independence and sovereignty, and the inalienable rights; yet, this does not guatentee the outcome desired. Just as the chef like me, that is dumber than a box of rocks in the kitchen, so it has been for more than a century with the (guess who) → The Arab Palestinians. And the attitude of non-cooperation started early on:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. See UK History of Administration October 1947​

BUT , I reiterate that I don't think that anyone (in this discussion group) considered the Arab Palestinians exempt (sic) from any of the 9 core international human rights (IHR) instruments.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why lie when the truth is right there?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Why lie when the truth is right there?

(COMMENT)

I don't even think I know what this means?

• What "Lie?"
• Right "where?"

Most Respectfully
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem​

※→ abi, et al,

Yes, from time to time, like all humans, I make mistakes.

Apparent!

v/r
R

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

This thread is about Jerusalem and recent events there. How about sticking to the subject!

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.

Just another Israeli lie.

What else do you have?

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Show me that they signed a peace treaty which would have created a Palestinian State in most of Judea and Samaria, when it was offered to them twice.

Israeli lies. Quack.

Tinmore BULLSHIT !!! Endless Bullshit.

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

It wasn't the partition of the Mandate. It was the partition of Palestine. If the UN offered to give away half of the US, what would our answer be? The Palestinians have always been offered partition, never their state.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.

Just another Israeli lie.

What else do you have?

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Show me that they signed a peace treaty which would have created a Palestinian State in most of Judea and Samaria, when it was offered to them twice.

Israeli lies. Quack.

Tinmore BULLSHIT !!! Endless Bullshit.

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

It wasn't the partition of the Mandate. It was the partition of Palestine. If the UN offered to give away half of the US, what would our answer be? The Palestinians have always been offered partition, never their state.

Wrong thread. Again and again and again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is so lame... I hope you know what sovereignty means???

The Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginningof the international system with which the discipline deals.

International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain thePeace's significance and its impact on the world today:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of legal equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. These principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as "The Westphalian System"​

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

(COMMENT)

I do not believe that anyone talked about "exemptions" at all. This again is a demonstration of personal conjuring. All people have the exact same rights. There is nothing unique about the Rights of a Palestinian.

I have the absolute right to make Chateaubriand. I an physically able, I have the recipe insttructions, and I have the instruments necessary. Yet, I cannot make a decent Chateaubriand to save my ass. I just don't know how. Just because you all the prerequissites, does not gaurentee the desired outcome.

The Arab Palestinians have ALL the parts → the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, right to national independence and sovereignty, and the inalienable rights; yet, this does not guatentee the outcome desired. Just as the chef like me, that is dumber than a box of rocks in the kitchen, so it has been for more than a century with the (guess who) → The Arab Palestinians. And the attitude of non-cooperation started early on:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. See UK History of Administration October 1947​

BUT , I reiterate that I don't think that anyone (in this discussion group) considered the Arab Palestinians exempt (sic) from any of the 9 core international human rights (IHR) instruments.

Most Respectfully,
R

Post this crap in another thread so I won't be off topic responding to it.

 

[abi]

AyeCantSeeYou
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ayecantseeyou.43888/
This thread is from years ago and is about a young boy that was burnt to death by extremist Jewish settlers. This has absolutely nothing to do with the recent events there.

Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street.[4][5] His family immediately reported the fact to Israeli Police who located his charred body a few hours later at Givat Shaul in the Jerusalem Forest. Preliminary results from the autopsy suggested that he was beaten and burnt while still alive....
[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Mohammed_Abu_Khdeir']Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia
[/URL]
This damn settler thing is ridiculous and now an ongoing war crime for 1/2 a century.http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ayecantseeyou.43888/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ayecantseeyou.43888/

 

[teddyearp]

Hey abi, it was in post #37 that you steered this thread far far away from its topic.

Just sayin'

 

[rylah]

It wasn't the partition of the Mandate. It was the partition of Palestine. If the UN offered to give away half of the US, what would our answer be? The Palestinians have always been offered partition, never their state.

Wrong,Palestinian Arabs refused a state, Palestinian Jews accepted it.
Those who were functional already at the time developed into a state, those who rejected reality remained stateless.And Arabs states have a big part to it as Palestinian leadership itself.

Anyway, the question of Jerusalem , solved to the opposite direction would not have solved the Arab violence.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

AyeCantSeeYou
This thread is from years ago and is about a young boy that was burnt to death by extremist Jewish settlers. This has absolutely nothing to do with the recent events there.

Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street.[4][5] His family immediately reported the fact to Israeli Police who located his charred body a few hours later at Givat Shaul in the Jerusalem Forest. Preliminary results from the autopsy suggested that he was beaten and burnt while still alive....
Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ayecantseeyou.43888/
This damn settler thing is ridiculous and now an ongoing war crime for 1/2 a century.

What is the problem with YOU discussing current events in Jerusalem? A new thread with today's date does NOT have to be made to do that. Do you NOT understand that? Continue derailing the thread, if you dare.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The BBC News website did not produce any stand-alone reporting on that story and the only mention of the IDF’s announcement came in twenty words in half a sentence in yet another article about the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital that was published on the website’s Middle East page on December 10th under the headline “Netanyahu: Palestinians must face reality over Jerusalem“.

Notably, despite the IDF having identified the tunnel as belonging to Hamas, the BBC did not report that information to its audiences and was ‘unable’ to describe the tunnel’s purpose in its own words.

“…Israel said it had blown up a tunnel from Gaza, which it says was being dug to enable militant attacks”

Obviously Israeli officials did not use the phrase “militant attacks” and so for the third time this month we see the BBC inaccurately paraphrasing statements made by Israelis despite the fact that the BBC’s guidance on ‘Language when Reporting Terrorism’ states:

“…we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people…”

(full article online)

Jerusalem terror attack gets 21 words of BBC coverage

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin on Thursday morning received a phone call from President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, during which President Steinmeier conveyed his sincere condemnation of what he noted were deeply distressing expressions of anti-Semitism witnessed during a wave of anti-Israel activities in Berlin over the last week.

Of note, during demonstrations against US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Israeli flags were burned and witnesses reported hearing anti-Semitic chants and calls in both Arabic and German, including shouts of “Death to the Jews.”

(full article online)

German President: Racism and hatred have no place in Germany

 

[Sixties Fan]

37 Palestinian rioters arrested in East Jerusalem police raids

 

[abi]

Finally, there is the reality of daily life for Palestinians in and around Jerusalem. Having closed East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, Israel has accelerated its policy of strangling the life out of Arabs in Jerusalem. Denied employment, victimized by home demolitions and land theft, and subject to host of discriminatory policies that violate fundamental human rights, the endurance of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian Arab population is tested daily. Trump’s silence on these matters while offering a hollow “God Bless the Palestinian people” at the end of his remarks was more like “ashes in the mouth” than an expression of real concern. It aggravated, more than it comforted.

Trump's Jerusalem Decision Rubber Stamps 70 Years of Israeli Violations - Antiwar.com Original

 

[Sixties Fan]

Low-level clashes break out across West Bank for second Friday in a row

 

[Sixties Fan]

When President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week, many world leaders warned that it would spark mass violence and widespread instability across the Israel.

What they fail to recognize is that Palestinian violence after the Trump’s announcement was just the same as before.

Watch and see how Palestinian leaders incited violence before Trump’s announcement and after.

(vide video online)

WATCH: Has Palestinian Violence Changed After Trump’s Jerusalem Announcement?