Justice for the Palestinians

[Shusha]

So. On another thread someone said, "In all negotiations, justice (for the Palestinians) has been off the table".

Let's discuss. What does "justice" mean? What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

 

[proudveteran06]

So. On another thread someone said, "In all negotiations, justice (for the Palestinians) has been off the table".

Let's discuss. What does "justice" mean? What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

To Pro Palestinians " justice" would mean returning to borders that were never recognized in the first place, NJA in E. Jerusalem which would deprive Jews of their religious sites, part of " Israel Proper " handed over and " Right of Return" which in time would be annexed to the Palestinian State. None of that is going to happen

 

[Hollie]

Justice for Islamic fascists is spelled out in uncompromising detail in their charter:

Calls for the Destruction of Israel

· "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)." [Introduction]



· "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine…" [Article 6]


There's a lot more Hitler'esqe / Nazi inspired appeals to a supremacist ideology.

 

[Phoenall]

So. On another thread someone said, "In all negotiations, justice (for the Palestinians) has been off the table".

Let's discuss. What does "justice" mean? What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

It would be bi-lateral and apply equally to the other parties. It would not be based of falsehoods, fictions, lies and propaganda. It would need to be negotiated properly with a third party acting as referee, and only proven facts allowed as evidence

 

[RoccoR]

et al, and Justice for the Palestinians;

I'm not sure that there is a "justice for Palestinians;" but rather a more acceptable justice that must be thought of as rending guidance for the political process that ultimately influence the prevailing powers that be. The problem with looking at "justice today," for the Palestinians is that just as the Palestinians --- look backwards in time, to what was considered the acceptable and proper course of action for then --- may not be the principles adopted now. What was considered post war transitions --- characterized by the co-existence (two-state solution) of former combatants, some common ground must be resolved --- politically and morally acceptable to the emerging combatants into peace. Yet --- politically, such a peace framework must be (as Treaty Conventions treat them today) within the parameters of current law.

This sounds all well and good; but (in actuality), doesn't cure a thing. Under this blend of distributive (generally accepted internationally) and transitional (in the aftermath of conflict with human rights issues) justice, the Arab Palestinians could look backwards in time at intervals of 50 or 100 years, as they do today, and claim: "We are the victim of a grave injustice." ¶ Historically and culturally, nations that have adopted the Western concepts of morality and justice --- are --- not generally adopted by the Arab World, affecting their abilities in the economics relative to political peace busting commercial trade, industrial development or science and technology innovations. Where Japan and Germany, both devastatingly defeated in WWII, have become alliance members of the Group of Eight (G8) --- highly industrialized nations which functions as a "steering group for the 'West" —that the foster the generally accepted consensus on global issues like economic growth, crisis management, global security, energy, and terrorism; the Arab Middle East, and the Arab League in general, meet concerning of a more regional nature, except where the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (Oil cartel business).

What the Arab World views as justice, may not coincide with the view of the western world. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if all the demands are not met, then the Arab-Palestinian perceives this as unjust. Just as under Sharia Courts, unjust punishments are, themselves, inhuman and unjust in the Western World --- beheading, flogging, stoning to death and eye gouging --- the perception of justice is different.

A Sharia Court decreed that Ali al-Khawahir, a 24-year-old, to be surgically paralyzed [or pay one million Riyals ($266,000)] as punishment for a crime he committed as a 14-year-old (Khawahir stabbed a childhood friend in the spine during an argument ten years before), that had left his victim paralyzed.
​

What is "just and fair" versus "unjust and unfair" is a subjective decision. Thus, justice is relative. What the West would consider absurd, is perfectly acceptable in some cultures. Similarly, political consideration and negotiating points that are absurd to some --- are perfectly acceptable in other justice systems.

(QUESTION)

What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

(ANSWER)

• (1967 Arab Resolution)> The "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..

• (2012 Policy)> "We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains, and Allah willing, this will not be long."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Just as under Sharia Courts, unjust punishments are, themselves, inhuman and unjust in the Western World --- beheading, flogging, stoning to death and eye gouging --- the perception of justice is different.

A Sharia Court decreed that Ali al-Khawahir, a 24-year-old, to be surgically paralyzed [or pay one million Riyals ($266,000)] as punishment for a crime he committed as a 14-year-old (Khawahir stabbed a childhood friend in the spine during an argument ten years before), that had left his victim paralyzed.
​

What is "just and fair" versus "unjust and unfair" is a subjective decision. Thus, justice is relative. What the West would consider absurd, is perfectly acceptable in some cultures.

I think you have an excellent point here, Rocco.

What is interesting to me, then, is why our Western friends have a differing sense of justice than you or I might have, given that we, at least, should all be operating from the same framework.

Thoughts?

 

[anotherlife]

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

 

[Phoenall]

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

YES about time this was put over by someone else. The problem is it would show just how many Palestinians are illegal immigrants and not liable for any real Justice.

 

[Boston1]

The premise of the question is all wrong. There is no such thing as a palestinian, ergo there can be no justice for a fictional entity.

Justice would be admitting they are all Arab Muslims colonists and treating them accordingly now that they are on Judaic tribal lands.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, anotherlife, et al,


Once we understand that “justice” is relative [in terms of morals and ethics (between overall belief systems)], then you also have to consider that justice is both temporal (different over time) and varying in value (the economics of the justice outcome).

What is interesting to me, then, is why our Western friends have a differing sense of justice than you or I might have, given that we, at least, should all be operating from the same framework.

Thoughts?

(COMMENT)

Sharia Law is radically different from Judeo-Christian based laws. The theft of a horse in 1864 was a hanging offense west of Chicago, yet the value of the horse today is based on the value of the horse. In murder or manslaughter the crime is generally punishable by some form of incarceration. However, in other cultures the restitution of murder, bodily harm or property damage is based on the negotiated outcome (Diyya). Whereas some blasphemes --- in which NO murder, bodily harm or property damage is involved is subject to a fatwa for execution.

Not all cultures and societies develop at the same rate, with the same level of education; or the same focus on economic and commercial considerations. Water in the Sinai Desert is more valuable that water in the Agricultural Ohio Valley. The Diyya for a Carpenter in the Sinai is less than a Doctor from Jeruslaem, or a totally unproductive Cleric in Mecca.

Laws are often based on cultural and societal norms relative to what is important to a community. In most western political systems, truthfulness and honesty in a politician is of less importance than the access and influence bribes can buy.

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

(COMMENT)

Who is a “Palestinian” is not as important then establishing a framework for business, commerce, industry and manufacturing; all the things that lure employment that provides a revenue stream for development. In fact, it is more likely that a governmental system that leans away from the Arab centric societies will prosper and develop more rapidly.

In most cases, what is at stake in the Middle East is not property ownership --- but sovereignty. The closer one examines that single issue, the more complex the issue becomes. In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,

R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, anotherlife, et al,


Once we understand that “justice” is relative [in terms of morals and ethics (between overall belief systems)], then you also have to consider that justice is both temporal (different over time) and varying in value (the economics of the justice outcome).

What is interesting to me, then, is why our Western friends have a differing sense of justice than you or I might have, given that we, at least, should all be operating from the same framework.

Thoughts?

(COMMENT)

Sharia Law is radically different from Judeo-Christian based laws. The theft of a horse in 1864 was a hanging offense west of Chicago, yet the value of the horse today is based on the value of the horse. In murder or manslaughter the crime is generally punishable by some form of incarceration. However, in other cultures the restitution of murder, bodily harm or property damage is based on the negotiated outcome (Diyya). Whereas some blasphemes --- in which NO murder, bodily harm or property damage is involved is subject to a fatwa for execution.

Not all cultures and societies develop at the same rate, with the same level of education; or the same focus on economic and commercial considerations. Water in the Sinai Desert is more valuable that water in the Agricultural Ohio Valley. The Diyya for a Carpenter in the Sinai is less than a Doctor from Jeruslaem, or a totally unproductive Cleric in Mecca.

Laws are often based on cultural and societal norms relative to what is important to a community. In most western political systems, truthfulness and honesty in a politician is of less importance than the access and influence bribes can buy.

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

(COMMENT)

Who is a “Palestinian” is not as important then establishing a framework for business, commerce, industry and manufacturing; all the things that lure employment that provides a revenue stream for development. In fact, it is more likely that a governmental system that leans away from the Arab centric societies will prosper and develop more rapidly.

In most cases, what is at stake in the Middle East is not property ownership --- but sovereignty. The closer one examines that single issue, the more complex the issue becomes. In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,

R

In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.​

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

 

[anotherlife]

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

YES about time this was put over by someone else. The problem is it would show just how many Palestinians are illegal immigrants and not liable for any real Justice.

Probably no, because the word illegal immigrant is used everywhere against indigenous people too, where a government administration doesn't want them.

 

[anotherlife]

Shusha, anotherlife, et al,


Once we understand that “justice” is relative [in terms of morals and ethics (between overall belief systems)], then you also have to consider that justice is both temporal (different over time) and varying in value (the economics of the justice outcome).

What is interesting to me, then, is why our Western friends have a differing sense of justice than you or I might have, given that we, at least, should all be operating from the same framework.

Thoughts?

(COMMENT)

Sharia Law is radically different from Judeo-Christian based laws. The theft of a horse in 1864 was a hanging offense west of Chicago, yet the value of the horse today is based on the value of the horse. In murder or manslaughter the crime is generally punishable by some form of incarceration. However, in other cultures the restitution of murder, bodily harm or property damage is based on the negotiated outcome (Diyya). Whereas some blasphemes --- in which NO murder, bodily harm or property damage is involved is subject to a fatwa for execution.

Not all cultures and societies develop at the same rate, with the same level of education; or the same focus on economic and commercial considerations. Water in the Sinai Desert is more valuable that water in the Agricultural Ohio Valley. The Diyya for a Carpenter in the Sinai is less than a Doctor from Jeruslaem, or a totally unproductive Cleric in Mecca.

Laws are often based on cultural and societal norms relative to what is important to a community. In most western political systems, truthfulness and honesty in a politician is of less importance than the access and influence bribes can buy.

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

(COMMENT)

Who is a “Palestinian” is not as important then establishing a framework for business, commerce, industry and manufacturing; all the things that lure employment that provides a revenue stream for development. In fact, it is more likely that a governmental system that leans away from the Arab centric societies will prosper and develop more rapidly.

In most cases, what is at stake in the Middle East is not property ownership --- but sovereignty. The closer one examines that single issue, the more complex the issue becomes. In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,

R

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

View attachment 78606​

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

View attachment 78606​

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

There is no such thing as palestinians , ergo they cannot be legal inhabitants of any land.

Consequently it doesn't really matter what a fictional people "consider"

What matters is that Tribal land is once again in the hands of its rightful owners. The Judaic people

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

View attachment 78606​

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

There is no such thing as palestinians , ergo they cannot be legal inhabitants of any land.

Consequently it doesn't really matter what a fictional people "consider"

What matters is that Tribal land is once again in the hands of its rightful owners. The Judaic people

There is no such thing as palestinians ,​

Now all you have to do is to get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

Good luck with that.

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

I think it is not possible to conduct business if you don't have your own identity or if you only have an identity that is imposed upon you. So the Arab centric foundations are essential.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

View attachment 78606​

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

There is no such thing as palestinians , ergo they cannot be legal inhabitants of any land.

Consequently it doesn't really matter what a fictional people "consider"

What matters is that Tribal land is once again in the hands of its rightful owners. The Judaic people

There is no such thing as palestinians ,​

Now all you have to do is to get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

Good luck with that.

Millions of idiots also believe in creation, doesn't make it any more real now does it ;--)

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha, anotherlife, et al,


Once we understand that “justice” is relative [in terms of morals and ethics (between overall belief systems)], then you also have to consider that justice is both temporal (different over time) and varying in value (the economics of the justice outcome).

What is interesting to me, then, is why our Western friends have a differing sense of justice than you or I might have, given that we, at least, should all be operating from the same framework.

Thoughts?

(COMMENT)

Sharia Law is radically different from Judeo-Christian based laws. The theft of a horse in 1864 was a hanging offense west of Chicago, yet the value of the horse today is based on the value of the horse. In murder or manslaughter the crime is generally punishable by some form of incarceration. However, in other cultures the restitution of murder, bodily harm or property damage is based on the negotiated outcome (Diyya). Whereas some blasphemes --- in which NO murder, bodily harm or property damage is involved is subject to a fatwa for execution.

Not all cultures and societies develop at the same rate, with the same level of education; or the same focus on economic and commercial considerations. Water in the Sinai Desert is more valuable that water in the Agricultural Ohio Valley. The Diyya for a Carpenter in the Sinai is less than a Doctor from Jeruslaem, or a totally unproductive Cleric in Mecca.

Laws are often based on cultural and societal norms relative to what is important to a community. In most western political systems, truthfulness and honesty in a politician is of less importance than the access and influence bribes can buy.

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

(COMMENT)

Who is a “Palestinian” is not as important then establishing a framework for business, commerce, industry and manufacturing; all the things that lure employment that provides a revenue stream for development. In fact, it is more likely that a governmental system that leans away from the Arab centric societies will prosper and develop more rapidly.

In most cases, what is at stake in the Middle East is not property ownership --- but sovereignty. The closer one examines that single issue, the more complex the issue becomes. In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,

R

In reality, when the Hashemite Kingdom disengaged from the West Bank, the West Bank became “Terra Nullius” under the effective control of the Israelis.​

That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory as it is still designated today. Jordan was merely considered to be the trustee of that territory.

When did that become illegal then ?

Jordan was not a trustee as they took the land by force of arms and held it illegally. They then passed laws making all Jewish owned land in the west bank government owned. which was against international laws. They annexed the west bank and stole the corpus seperatum from the world for which the UN should have invaded and driven them back over the Jordan river.

Strange how when it is arab muslims annexing land it is allowed, but let the Jews reclaim it and it is illegal to do so. What price your right of return under those rules ?

 

[Phoenall]

I think justice should define who a Palestinian is, and then establish their historic assets such as land and money and trade rights. Then the international community can negotiate about restoring these.

YES about time this was put over by someone else. The problem is it would show just how many Palestinians are illegal immigrants and not liable for any real Justice.

Probably no, because the word illegal immigrant is used everywhere against indigenous people too, where a government administration doesn't want them.

In this case it would be a litmus test to settle the argument once and for all, leaving everyone under no illusion as to who is Palestinian and who isn't. The very thing the arab league does not want as it would show the truth about the conflict.