How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[ForeverYoung436]

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

But surely you mean to replace it with someone who can prevent another terrorist government from forming. Maybe a Mandate Power?

Are you wanting to eliminate the symptoms without correcting the problems?

Not sure I am understanding your question...

Care to elaborate?

Tinmore is being coy again. What he really means to say is, "Israel should be destroyed!"

 

[Shusha]

Are you wanting to eliminate the symptoms without correcting the problems?

Your understanding of the "problems" is pretty limited. You see the problem as being one of displacement. And if we just undisplace people, all the problems would be solved. I thinks its a narrow understanding of the conflict. And I think it would deepen the conflict rather than solve it.

 

[louie888]

Your understanding of the "problems" is pretty limited.

Says the one who thinks telling the blacks to go back to Africa is not racist.

You see the problem as being one of displacement. And if we just undisplace people, all the problems would be solved. I thinks its a narrow understanding of the conflict. And I think it would deepen the conflict rather than solve it.

Because you lie.

This is yet another fake "solutions" thread from you.

The solution is simple AND HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES. THE EUROPEAN JEWS WHO REFUSE TO OR SIMPLY CANNOT LIVE IN PEACE WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THAT LAND NEED TO GO.

It is that simple and as you know, they are already carrying out a similar policy on the Africans there.

 

[Shusha]

"Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interaction"

"Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty."

Let's put the border control aside for one moment... For any country to have "sovereignty" then surely you would agree that the country would have full control of land, air and sea?

Gaza has full and complete control over her land. Her government can do what it likes there. It can permit (or fail to police) the smuggling of weapons. It can allocate resources to building tunnels instead of homes, schools and hospitals. It can procure electricity for its own use, denying it population. It can neglect repair to sewage and water infrastructure. It can police the people as it sees fit, enact laws and enforce them. Israel has absolutely no control over what goes on in Gaza. Gaza is sovereign to do what she likes there.

A blockade does not end someone's sovereignty. Nor create an occupation.

What the blockade does is reduce the ability of the Gazan government to interact with other nations and entities in trade. I'm not saying that it does affect the Gazan government and the Gazan people. It most surely does. (As its intended to).

Should Gaza have control over her sea and air? Of course. But let's put responsibility where it belongs. The reason she does not have control over her sea and air is because she is governed by a terrorist organization (and has several others operating relatively freely). And because she continues her belligerent actions toward Israel (if not by the government, certainly with their complicity.) The blockade will and should end when that is no longer true. And who has sovereignty over that decision? Hamas. Not Israel.

 

[montelatici]

"Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interaction"

"Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty."

Let's put the border control aside for one moment... For any country to have "sovereignty" then surely you would agree that the country would have full control of land, air and sea?

Gaza has full and complete control over her land. Her government can do what it likes there. It can permit (or fail to police) the smuggling of weapons. It can allocate resources to building tunnels instead of homes, schools and hospitals. It can procure electricity for its own use, denying it population. It can neglect repair to sewage and water infrastructure. It can police the people as it sees fit, enact laws and enforce them. Israel has absolutely no control over what goes on in Gaza. Gaza is sovereign to do what she likes there.

A blockade does not end someone's sovereignty. Nor create an occupation.

What the blockade does is reduce the ability of the Gazan government to interact with other nations and entities in trade. I'm not saying that it does affect the Gazan government and the Gazan people. It most surely does. (As its intended to).

Should Gaza have control over her sea and air? Of course. But let's put responsibility where it belongs. The reason she does not have control over her sea and air is because she is governed by a terrorist organization (and has several others operating relatively freely). And because she continues her belligerent actions toward Israel (if not by the government, certainly with their complicity.) The blockade will and should end when that is no longer true. And who has sovereignty over that decision? Hamas. Not Israel.

Gaza is under Israeli occupation and is blockaded.

Per the International Court of Justice.

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

http://www.unrod.org/docs/ICJ-Advisory2004.pdf

 

[Shusha]

Battlefield weapons used in urban settings are inherently indiscriminate.

Sure. And, as I stated, if you want to argue that NO nation should use any "battlefield" weapons in urban settings and that all military conflict in urban settings be conducted using only hand-to-hand weapons, I would say you have a fair point. But it is a departure from current international standards. I would have no problem with such an argument. (Though there are issues with hand-to-hand and house-to-house combat as well. It would be a fascinating conversation.)

But aerial bombardment, while prone to error, is not necessarily inherently indiscriminate. My understanding is that it can be used with great precision.

And there is a subtle and important difference between saying that Israel indiscriminately bombs Gaza, and saying that the current military weapons used everywhere in the world are inherently indiscriminate in urban settings. The one speaks to intentional lack of targeting and the other to targeting, while acknowledging potential for error.

Its important to differentiate so as not to demonize Israel's intent.

 

[Shusha]

The solution is simple AND HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES. THE EUROPEAN JEWS WHO REFUSE TO OR SIMPLY CANNOT LIVE IN PEACE WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THAT LAND NEED TO GO.

Jews get along fantastically with the indigenous people.

If an Arab Palestinian stabs a Jew, which one of them is "not getting along"?

 

[Shusha]

Gaza is under Israeli occupation and is blockaded.

Per the International Court of Justice.

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

http://www.unrod.org/docs/ICJ-Advisory2004.pdf

Yeah, yeah. You've posted that opinion before. The problem with it is that it is a special set of rules applying only to Israel. Its a reading of law (interpretation) which applies only to Israel. No where else in the world is a blockade considered an occupation. If you can prove me wrong, do so.

Its also ridiculous because its impossible for Israel to negate most of these conditions. For example, Israel will always control its own border (just like every nation does). Israel will always be able to conduct incursions into Gaza. It will always have the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time. Israel will always be in close geographic proximity to Gaza. Israel can never change those. Its silly. The reading makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to stop occupying Gaza.

 

[montelatici]

Gaza is under Israeli occupation and is blockaded.

Per the International Court of Justice.

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

http://www.unrod.org/docs/ICJ-Advisory2004.pdf

Yeah, yeah. You've posted that opinion before. The problem with it is that it is a special set of rules applying only to Israel. Its a reading of law (interpretation) which applies only to Israel. No where else in the world is a blockade considered an occupation. If you can prove me wrong, do so.

Its also ridiculous because its impossible for Israel to negate most of these conditions. For example, Israel will always control its own border (just like every nation does). Israel will always be able to conduct incursions into Gaza. It will always have the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time. Israel will always be in close geographic proximity to Gaza. Israel can never change those. Its silly. The reading makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to stop occupying Gaza.

No, the rules were established during the Nuremburg Tribunals. The Germans tried to claim that areas in the Balkans they removed troops from were not occupied although they had troops in nearby juristictions that could re-enter the areas on short notice.

Israel is occupying Gaza. Full stop.

 

[Shusha]

No, the rules were established during the Nuremburg Tribunals. The Germans tried to claim that areas in the Balkans they removed troops from were not occupied although they had troops in nearby juristictions that could re-enter the areas on short notice.

Well, that's not all that it says. Geographical proximity, existence of troops, capability of deployment are not the defining factor. Here's the relevant quote:

While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

This is a case of poorly organized, loosely controlled, multiple groups of resistance fighters, with poor and temporary control of specific sections of these countries. There was no government, no unifying force. And they were not lawful belligerents.

Hamas is an elected government. It has had physical and governmental control of the territory for TEN years. Not the same.

 

[montelatici]

It's exactly the same.

 

[Shusha]

It's exactly the same.

Hamas begs to differ.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interaction"

"Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty."

Let's put the border control aside for one moment... For any country to have "sovereignty" then surely you would agree that the country would have full control of land, air and sea?

Gaza has full and complete control over her land. Her government can do what it likes there. It can permit (or fail to police) the smuggling of weapons. It can allocate resources to building tunnels instead of homes, schools and hospitals. It can procure electricity for its own use, denying it population. It can neglect repair to sewage and water infrastructure. It can police the people as it sees fit, enact laws and enforce them. Israel has absolutely no control over what goes on in Gaza. Gaza is sovereign to do what she likes there.

A blockade does not end someone's sovereignty. Nor create an occupation.

What the blockade does is reduce the ability of the Gazan government to interact with other nations and entities in trade. I'm not saying that it does affect the Gazan government and the Gazan people. It most surely does. (As its intended to).

Should Gaza have control over her sea and air? Of course. But let's put responsibility where it belongs. The reason she does not have control over her sea and air is because she is governed by a terrorist organization (and has several others operating relatively freely). And because she continues her belligerent actions toward Israel (if not by the government, certainly with their complicity.) The blockade will and should end when that is no longer true. And who has sovereignty over that decision? Hamas. Not Israel.

Can't you post without playing the terrorist card?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you wanting to eliminate the symptoms without correcting the problems?

Your understanding of the "problems" is pretty limited. You see the problem as being one of displacement. And if we just undisplace people, all the problems would be solved. I thinks its a narrow understanding of the conflict. And I think it would deepen the conflict rather than solve it.

What is the downside of equality?

I think you are seeing something I don't.

 

[theliq]

It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc.

That would go a long way to promote peace. Hamas has put that on the table in all recent ceasefire agreements to have them rejected by Israel. So it is Israel who wants to keep the hostilities going.

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response. Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Your fawning over the Islamic terrorists you define as your heroes is cute but the Peace Partners nonsense is a farce,

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

But the Jews OBLITERATED the Canaanites,Moabites and with Zionist help, almost OBLITERATED THE PALESTINIANS with Murder and Slaughter...so your point IS ???????????????? You Zionist Terrorist...Synthetic Wannabee

 

[theliq]

It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc.

That would go a long way to promote peace. Hamas has put that on the table in all recent ceasefire agreements to have them rejected by Israel. So it is Israel who wants to keep the hostilities going.

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response. Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Totally agree... It would go a LONG way to promote peace...

However... I would want Hamas 'removed' before that happened!

Whether that was with free, open elections or force I don;t really care!

Attacks on known and recognised terrorist organisations are fair and justified!

Then Let's start with the ZIONIST TERRORISTS......

 

[Challenger]

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

In 1919 all the recently "liberated" Arabic areas of the Ottoman Empire wanted to form one Arabic state, but as this ran contrary to European Imperial interests (i.e. Sykes-Picot) this was never going to happen. To use 1919 aspirations as an argument that Palestinians never wanted a seperate state is both ridiculous and disingenuous. As the postwar Middle East evolved, so did Palestinian aspirations.

1919- 1st Palestine Congress - official proclamation that 'Palestine is Syria'
1920 - after French took Syria, official proclamation that Palestine should be a Part of a bigger Arab state.
1981 - The minister of public affairs of All-Palestine govt. confirms publicly that there's no division between Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
1982- Arafat talking about 'One Arab state from Morocco to Yemen'.

The way Westerners understand Palestinian nationalism as something 'separate' is not the way Arabs themselves view it - as a tool for a unified Arab rule in the whole region..

How much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire?

Drivel. You are, as Hasbarists are wont to do, proceeding from a number of false premises, namely Palestinians are Arabs from Arabia rather than native Levantines who adopted Arabic culture over the centuries. The idea of Pan-Arabism was a mainstream ideaology both before and especially after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabised territories of the Ottoman Empire, "from Morocco to Yemen" if you like, yearned for a resurgence of a unified Caliphate and those comments should be taken in that context, assuming they were ever made, as the All Palestine Government didn't exist in 1981 and whatever Arafat may or may not have said in that sound-bite clip was translated by Zionist Israelis, so may be suspect.

As to, "how much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire" just look at the U.S.A.; each state has a level of internal autonomy and independence, yet all contribute to a supra-state government. Any such independence would be far better for the Palestinians than being dispossed and colonised by foreign settlers who continue a regime of oppression and denial of Palestinian self-determination.

 

[Challenger]

(R. Hamid (ed.) Muqararat al-majlis al-watani al-filastini 1964 Resolutions of the PNCs 1964-1974, Beirut, PLO Research Centre, 1975, p178 Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress)

Link to the original, please. I'd like to read the whole declaration to see in what context this often quoted paragraph was made.

 

[theliq]

(R. Hamid (ed.) Muqararat al-majlis al-watani al-filastini 1964 Resolutions of the PNCs 1964-1974, Beirut, PLO Research Centre, 1975, p178 Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress)

Link to the original, please. I'd like to read the whole declaration to see in what context this often quoted paragraph was made.

So would we all Challenger ...steve

 

[rylah]

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

In 1919 all the recently "liberated" Arabic areas of the Ottoman Empire wanted to form one Arabic state, but as this ran contrary to European Imperial interests (i.e. Sykes-Picot) this was never going to happen. To use 1919 aspirations as an argument that Palestinians never wanted a seperate state is both ridiculous and disingenuous. As the postwar Middle East evolved, so did Palestinian aspirations.

1919- 1st Palestine Congress - official proclamation that 'Palestine is Syria'
1920 - after French took Syria, official proclamation that Palestine should be a Part of a bigger Arab state.
1981 - The minister of public affairs of All-Palestine govt. confirms publicly that there's no division between Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
1982- Arafat talking about 'One Arab state from Morocco to Yemen'.

The way Westerners understand Palestinian nationalism as something 'separate' is not the way Arabs themselves view it - as a tool for a unified Arab rule in the whole region..

How much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire?

Drivel. You are, as Hasbarists are wont to do, proceeding from a number of false premises, namely Palestinians are Arabs from Arabia rather than native Levantines who adopted Arabic culture over the centuries. The idea of Pan-Arabism was a mainstream ideaology both before and especially after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabised territories of the Ottoman Empire, "from Morocco to Yemen" if you like, yearned for a resurgence of a unified Caliphate and those comments should be taken in that context, assuming they were ever made, as the All Palestine Government didn't exist in 1981 and whatever Arafat may or may not have said in that sound-bite clip was translated by Zionist Israelis, so may be suspect.

As to, "how much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire" just look at the U.S.A.; each state has a level of internal autonomy and independence, yet all contribute to a supra-state government. Any such independence would be far better for the Palestinians than being dispossed and colonised by foreign settlers who continue a regime of oppression and denial of Palestinian self-determination.

Hasbara this, hasbara that....
Palestinians as much the people in Lebanon have their roots in Arabian, Greek, European and other Near-Eastern peoples. You don't need to invent a parallel history to make Bedouins and Egyptians into 'Levantine people'. They're much closer to Arabians, Syrian Arabs and Egyptians than to the Druze who are Levantine people. Guess who also clusters with the Druze....not the Palestinians. The Palestinians don't deny that even today...and they say it openly.

Challenger did You just compare USA to the Caliphate??
This IS THE SYMPTOM of team Palestine, You guys in the west can't really distinguish between Your invented ideals and reality, between civilization and barbarity.

Tell me how the lives of the Yazidis, Christians and Kurds look today in the Caliphate?
How about a yellow star for the dhimmi Jews, should we return to that either?