Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Still nothing.In the article.
Cant you read English, is that where you have so much trouble understanding that there was never a state of Palestine prior to 1988.
You still got nothing, huh?
A lot more thqan you as you use the same LIES even after being shown they are LIES
No. Israel won it from the UN in a defensive war.WOW, so much Israeli propaganda all at once.In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Sorry but not a valid source as the author alter and manipulates official documents to meet with his and yours POV. The treaty of Lausanne does not mention palestine by name, and the nationality was that of the mandatory power as no state of Palestine was in existence. The legality of Palestine was that of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE that set out the borders of said mandate.
To settle this dispute once and for all produce the treaty in full that names Palestine as a nation prior to 1988 that was accepted by the UN/LoN with the signature appended to the document of the official ruler/leader of Palestine. A photograph of this ruler/leader would also help along with his official residence. Failure to accept this request shows that you are LYING because you want to disinherit the Jews of their homeland and will go to any lengths to peddle your anti semitic hatred.
Sorry but not a valid source as the author alter and manipulates official documents to meet with his and yours POV.
Examples?
Read his work and you will see where he adds his own words to alter the meaning of treaties. If you cant see it then you are being fed disinformation.
Now produce the treaty he claims names Palestine as a state in full, Then details of the ruler/leader of the Palestinian state and where its capital city was. What its currency was and its GDP.
Like Israel that came into existence when the Jews declared independence on may 15 1948 with David Ben-Gurion as its prime minister. It had its capital as Tel Aviv and its currency was the NIS. Israel's GDP went from one of the worst in 1949 to one of the best in 2015.
Your turn with palestine
I thought Israel's capital was West Jerusalem from the start.
We differ on our basic beliefs.aris2chat, montelatici, et al,
As has been explained many times to you, the Partition Recommendation was not based solely on "Land Ownership" as the basis for sovereignty; or the allocation for a Jewish State should a Provisional Government exercise self-determination and follow the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
It was not some Arab based real-estate deal. Nor was it contested in the ways associated with peaceful disputes.
(COMMENT)Christians and Muslims owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition in 1946.>>Land owned by the Jews in 1948 9%
Land owned by the Arabs in 1948 10%
Land owned by the state and leased on a limited basis to people to use: 81%
80% of the land was initially given to the Palestinians and became what is Jordan today (yep, ethnically there is zero deference between the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians). The remaining 20% is what got divided up in the Mandate so that Jews ended up with a mere 10% of the land and the Palestinians 90%. This was not good enough for the Arabs so in 1948 5 Arab countries launched a war to try and wipe out the Jews- they failed. However, Egypt stole land from the palestianins (Gaza) and Jordan stole land intended for the Palestinians (the West Bank)- the Arabs gave 0% of the land intended for the Palestinians to the Palestinians!<<
Table 2. Survey of Palestine page 566.
View attachment 67832
A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
While this argument has been made many time before, it never answered the UN Open Topic of the "Question of Palestine."
Just as you have often pointed-out that so many members recognize the 1988 State of Palestine, so it was the case that a majority of the UN Member Nations; including the United States the Soviet Union, France and Australia.
The decision making process was based on the anticipated future needs of the Jewish People (including aspects not considered by the Arab to be of any consequence morally or rationally); and still allocated more than three-quarters of the original territory covered under the Mandate of Palestine to Arab Sovereignty. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (alone) was more that 77%.
The persistent defiance presented by the Arab Nations (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee), including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the recommended Partition Plan and voted as a bloc against GA Resolution 181 (II) with the open threat to use force to oppose implementation. This was done prior to any of the Arab subterfuge and nonsense that their acts of aggression were justified to restore order.
Ownership has nothing to do with "sovereignty." Theoretically the Arabs could have owned 100% of the land, and still not effect sovereignty. In fact, this was the case for a 1000 years prior to the Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey renouncing all rights and title over the territory in question.
While your argument might be able to convince those that don't understand the way Sovereignty was obtained up through the first half of the 20th Century, but surely, they cannot roll back the clock and merely pretend they have certain rights which they declined, rejected or were ineffective in implementation.
Most Respectfully,
R
In belief, belief and reality are the same, in reality, - they are not, of course.I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
We differ on our basic beliefs.aris2chat, montelatici, et al,
As has been explained many times to you, the Partition Recommendation was not based solely on "Land Ownership" as the basis for sovereignty; or the allocation for a Jewish State should a Provisional Government exercise self-determination and follow the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
It was not some Arab based real-estate deal. Nor was it contested in the ways associated with peaceful disputes.
(COMMENT)Christians and Muslims owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition in 1946.>>Land owned by the Jews in 1948 9%
Land owned by the Arabs in 1948 10%
Land owned by the state and leased on a limited basis to people to use: 81%
80% of the land was initially given to the Palestinians and became what is Jordan today (yep, ethnically there is zero deference between the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians). The remaining 20% is what got divided up in the Mandate so that Jews ended up with a mere 10% of the land and the Palestinians 90%. This was not good enough for the Arabs so in 1948 5 Arab countries launched a war to try and wipe out the Jews- they failed. However, Egypt stole land from the palestianins (Gaza) and Jordan stole land intended for the Palestinians (the West Bank)- the Arabs gave 0% of the land intended for the Palestinians to the Palestinians!<<
Table 2. Survey of Palestine page 566.
View attachment 67832
A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
While this argument has been made many time before, it never answered the UN Open Topic of the "Question of Palestine."
Just as you have often pointed-out that so many members recognize the 1988 State of Palestine, so it was the case that a majority of the UN Member Nations; including the United States the Soviet Union, France and Australia.
The decision making process was based on the anticipated future needs of the Jewish People (including aspects not considered by the Arab to be of any consequence morally or rationally); and still allocated more than three-quarters of the original territory covered under the Mandate of Palestine to Arab Sovereignty. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (alone) was more that 77%.
The persistent defiance presented by the Arab Nations (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee), including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the recommended Partition Plan and voted as a bloc against GA Resolution 181 (II) with the open threat to use force to oppose implementation. This was done prior to any of the Arab subterfuge and nonsense that their acts of aggression were justified to restore order.
Ownership has nothing to do with "sovereignty." Theoretically the Arabs could have owned 100% of the land, and still not effect sovereignty. In fact, this was the case for a 1000 years prior to the Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey renouncing all rights and title over the territory in question.
While your argument might be able to convince those that don't understand the way Sovereignty was obtained up through the first half of the 20th Century, but surely, they cannot roll back the clock and merely pretend they have certain rights which they declined, rejected or were ineffective in implementation.
Most Respectfully,
R
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
OK, but I am not sure how that applies to my post.P F Tinmore, et al,
I do not think I said that at all!
I don't believe you even know what the "sovereignty" means. Certainly it depends on which Islamic faction or Arab constituency is using the term; and what the hidden agenda is.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
In the Arab World, "sovereignty" is not in the providence of the people. Over half the Arab League member states are some form of monarchy, emirate, or military control. Even Egypt, which is listed as a Republic, is really a latent Military Dictatorship. Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen are in varying degrees of chaos of one sort or another. And it is not uncommon for Monarchies to support Monarchies; as when Saudi Arabia sent forces into Bahrain to assist in restoring order and suppress revolutionaries during the Arab Spring of 2011. Even the 1988 Variation of the State of Palestine, as you so often point-out, is not a believer in democracy and the right of self-determination, unless it is the right as articulated by the ruling party.
It was interesting to note the reaction of the Royals in Bahrain:
HRH Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Bahrain's crown prince offered opposition groups a dialogue on Sunday, but added that "right to security and stability transcends any other consideration."
The position you articulate here is not at all the predominant position held by the Regional Leaders:
With respect to the six Arab Gulf countries, there are two dominant viewpoints as to why the ruling elites have thus far remained in place.
• First, all are monarchies based upon tribal, clan and family allegiances and thus do not currently face a crisis of legitimacy. (Bahrain, for sectarian reasons, being a partial exception.)
• Second, the social contract has thus far been capable of providing enough jobs and housing and has been malleable enough to expediently transmit a series of additional quick-fix packages since 2011.
Most Respectfully,
R
We differ on our basic beliefs.aris2chat, montelatici, et al,
As has been explained many times to you, the Partition Recommendation was not based solely on "Land Ownership" as the basis for sovereignty; or the allocation for a Jewish State should a Provisional Government exercise self-determination and follow the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
It was not some Arab based real-estate deal. Nor was it contested in the ways associated with peaceful disputes.
(COMMENT)Christians and Muslims owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition in 1946.>>Land owned by the Jews in 1948 9%
Land owned by the Arabs in 1948 10%
Land owned by the state and leased on a limited basis to people to use: 81%
80% of the land was initially given to the Palestinians and became what is Jordan today (yep, ethnically there is zero deference between the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians). The remaining 20% is what got divided up in the Mandate so that Jews ended up with a mere 10% of the land and the Palestinians 90%. This was not good enough for the Arabs so in 1948 5 Arab countries launched a war to try and wipe out the Jews- they failed. However, Egypt stole land from the palestianins (Gaza) and Jordan stole land intended for the Palestinians (the West Bank)- the Arabs gave 0% of the land intended for the Palestinians to the Palestinians!<<
Table 2. Survey of Palestine page 566.
View attachment 67832
A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
While this argument has been made many time before, it never answered the UN Open Topic of the "Question of Palestine."
Just as you have often pointed-out that so many members recognize the 1988 State of Palestine, so it was the case that a majority of the UN Member Nations; including the United States the Soviet Union, France and Australia.
The decision making process was based on the anticipated future needs of the Jewish People (including aspects not considered by the Arab to be of any consequence morally or rationally); and still allocated more than three-quarters of the original territory covered under the Mandate of Palestine to Arab Sovereignty. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (alone) was more that 77%.
The persistent defiance presented by the Arab Nations (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee), including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the recommended Partition Plan and voted as a bloc against GA Resolution 181 (II) with the open threat to use force to oppose implementation. This was done prior to any of the Arab subterfuge and nonsense that their acts of aggression were justified to restore order.
Ownership has nothing to do with "sovereignty." Theoretically the Arabs could have owned 100% of the land, and still not effect sovereignty. In fact, this was the case for a 1000 years prior to the Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey renouncing all rights and title over the territory in question.
While your argument might be able to convince those that don't understand the way Sovereignty was obtained up through the first half of the 20th Century, but surely, they cannot roll back the clock and merely pretend they have certain rights which they declined, rejected or were ineffective in implementation.
Most Respectfully,
R
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
You have it back asswards as you believe that sovereignty belongs to the recent illegal arab muslim immigrants, and not to the people with the longest habitation.
remember that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war in 1917 so lost all rights to the land. The Palestinian arab muslims just so happen to have been allies of the Ottomans and so lost
Moshe Aumann, brother of Robert John Aumann, Nobel Prize winner in economics
Land ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948 / Moshe Aumann. - Version details
Land ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948, pub. 1974
FIY, there was also another another "The Case For Israel" by Frank Gervasi, forward by Abba Eban. Viking Press NY, back in 1967
>>Frank Gervasi was world-renowned foreign correspondent and author. His books include To Whom Palestine?, The Case for Israel<<
(COMMENT)OK, but I am not sure how that applies to my post.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
Sovereignty is not determined by land ownership. It is irrelevant.We differ on our basic beliefs.aris2chat, montelatici, et al,
As has been explained many times to you, the Partition Recommendation was not based solely on "Land Ownership" as the basis for sovereignty; or the allocation for a Jewish State should a Provisional Government exercise self-determination and follow the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
It was not some Arab based real-estate deal. Nor was it contested in the ways associated with peaceful disputes.
(COMMENT)Christians and Muslims owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition in 1946.>>Land owned by the Jews in 1948 9%
Land owned by the Arabs in 1948 10%
Land owned by the state and leased on a limited basis to people to use: 81%
80% of the land was initially given to the Palestinians and became what is Jordan today (yep, ethnically there is zero deference between the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians). The remaining 20% is what got divided up in the Mandate so that Jews ended up with a mere 10% of the land and the Palestinians 90%. This was not good enough for the Arabs so in 1948 5 Arab countries launched a war to try and wipe out the Jews- they failed. However, Egypt stole land from the palestianins (Gaza) and Jordan stole land intended for the Palestinians (the West Bank)- the Arabs gave 0% of the land intended for the Palestinians to the Palestinians!<<
Table 2. Survey of Palestine page 566.
View attachment 67832
A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
While this argument has been made many time before, it never answered the UN Open Topic of the "Question of Palestine."
Just as you have often pointed-out that so many members recognize the 1988 State of Palestine, so it was the case that a majority of the UN Member Nations; including the United States the Soviet Union, France and Australia.
The decision making process was based on the anticipated future needs of the Jewish People (including aspects not considered by the Arab to be of any consequence morally or rationally); and still allocated more than three-quarters of the original territory covered under the Mandate of Palestine to Arab Sovereignty. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (alone) was more that 77%.
The persistent defiance presented by the Arab Nations (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee), including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the recommended Partition Plan and voted as a bloc against GA Resolution 181 (II) with the open threat to use force to oppose implementation. This was done prior to any of the Arab subterfuge and nonsense that their acts of aggression were justified to restore order.
Ownership has nothing to do with "sovereignty." Theoretically the Arabs could have owned 100% of the land, and still not effect sovereignty. In fact, this was the case for a 1000 years prior to the Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey renouncing all rights and title over the territory in question.
While your argument might be able to convince those that don't understand the way Sovereignty was obtained up through the first half of the 20th Century, but surely, they cannot roll back the clock and merely pretend they have certain rights which they declined, rejected or were ineffective in implementation.
Most Respectfully,
R
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
You have it back asswards as you believe that sovereignty belongs to the recent illegal arab muslim immigrants, and not to the people with the longest habitation.
remember that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war in 1917 so lost all rights to the land. The Palestinian arab muslims just so happen to have been allies of the Ottomans and so lost
He also forgets the Ottomans permitted jews to buy property in their historic homeland back in the 1800's.
Some arabs might have been born in the Ottoman/mandate but they were not the majority land owners.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, , it indicates just how far out of step you are with the Arab World on the matter of sovereignty; and how far out of step you are with the traditional application of national sovereignty.
(COMMENT)OK, but I am not sure how that applies to my post.
It applies directly to the post on the difference between our beliefs that are commonly held regionally.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with weaponry, except in the defense against Arab Spring revolutionaries and against Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and other anti-government forces.
No one in the power structure of the Middle East Arabs believes that the "normal inhabitance" have any right to impose sovereignty against the existing government. In the recap of any Arab Spring application, no government body or leadership simply rolled over and simply gave-up to the anti-government forces.
No Arab monarchy, emirate, or military control government --- no Arab failed state, or Arab nation in chaos, has ever demonstrated that a "right" exists without the use of force.
No Arab nation has, in modern or contemporary times demonstrated how to apply the "right to sovereignty" in any regional state. Certainly, the least of which is the 1988 State of Palestine or any supporting faction.
I would ask if any member of this discussion group can point-out any Arab State has been able to demonstrate the success in the application of the "right to self-determination" such that they are included in the top 25 nations ranked "very high" on the UN Human Development Index of countries:
Of the next 25 Countries, the only Arab LEague nation at the high end of the spectrum are monarchies, emirates and military governed Arab Nations (no right of self-determination states).
You are very, very very correct: We differ on our basic beliefs. Your concept of what it means for an Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State to be a people --- included in the "right to self-determination --- is relegate the Palestinians to a ranking outside the top 50 nations.
Even I don't wish that upon the Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, , it indicates just how far out of step you are with the Arab World on the matter of sovereignty; and how far out of step you are with the traditional application of national sovereignty.
(COMMENT)OK, but I am not sure how that applies to my post.
It applies directly to the post on the difference between our beliefs that are commonly held regionally.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with weaponry, except in the defense against Arab Spring revolutionaries and against Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and other anti-government forces.
No one in the power structure of the Middle East Arabs believes that the "normal inhabitance" have any right to impose sovereignty against the existing government. In the recap of any Arab Spring application, no government body or leadership simply rolled over and simply gave-up to the anti-government forces.
No Arab monarchy, emirate, or military control government --- no Arab failed state, or Arab nation in chaos, has ever demonstrated that a "right" exists without the use of force.
No Arab nation has, in modern or contemporary times demonstrated how to apply the "right to sovereignty" in any regional state. Certainly, the least of which is the 1988 State of Palestine or any supporting faction.
I would ask if any member of this discussion group can point-out any Arab State has been able to demonstrate the success in the application of the "right to self-determination" such that they are included in the top 25 nations ranked "very high" on the UN Human Development Index of countries:
Of the next 25 Countries, the only Arab LEague nation at the high end of the spectrum are monarchies, emirates and military governed Arab Nations (no right of self-determination states).
You are very, very very correct: We differ on our basic beliefs. Your concept of what it means for an Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State to be a people --- included in the "right to self-determination --- is relegate the Palestinians to a ranking outside the top 50 nations.
Even I don't wish that upon the Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State.
Most Respectfully,
R
Very much, indeed. Reclaim Australia!!I note Australia/Paradise is No 2........One of the Largest Multi Cultures in the world....It works
1. "was" - past tense....It was the Palestinian national home...
Moshe Aumann, brother of Robert John Aumann, Nobel Prize winner in economics
Land ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948 / Moshe Aumann. - Version details
Land ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948, pub. 1974
FIY, there was also another another "The Case For Israel" by Frank Gervasi, forward by Abba Eban. Viking Press NY, back in 1967
>>Frank Gervasi was world-renowned foreign correspondent and author. His books include To Whom Palestine?, The Case for Israel<<
Sounds like a real neutral source. LOL
The Survey of Palestine provided the exact figures on land ownership based on official land records.
View attachment 67998
Sovereignty is not determined by land ownership. It is irrelevant.We differ on our basic beliefs.aris2chat, montelatici, et al,
As has been explained many times to you, the Partition Recommendation was not based solely on "Land Ownership" as the basis for sovereignty; or the allocation for a Jewish State should a Provisional Government exercise self-determination and follow the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
It was not some Arab based real-estate deal. Nor was it contested in the ways associated with peaceful disputes.
(COMMENT)Christians and Muslims owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition in 1946.
Table 2. Survey of Palestine page 566.
View attachment 67832
A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
While this argument has been made many time before, it never answered the UN Open Topic of the "Question of Palestine."
Just as you have often pointed-out that so many members recognize the 1988 State of Palestine, so it was the case that a majority of the UN Member Nations; including the United States the Soviet Union, France and Australia.
The decision making process was based on the anticipated future needs of the Jewish People (including aspects not considered by the Arab to be of any consequence morally or rationally); and still allocated more than three-quarters of the original territory covered under the Mandate of Palestine to Arab Sovereignty. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (alone) was more that 77%.
The persistent defiance presented by the Arab Nations (Arab League and Arab Higher Committee), including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the recommended Partition Plan and voted as a bloc against GA Resolution 181 (II) with the open threat to use force to oppose implementation. This was done prior to any of the Arab subterfuge and nonsense that their acts of aggression were justified to restore order.
Ownership has nothing to do with "sovereignty." Theoretically the Arabs could have owned 100% of the land, and still not effect sovereignty. In fact, this was the case for a 1000 years prior to the Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey renouncing all rights and title over the territory in question.
While your argument might be able to convince those that don't understand the way Sovereignty was obtained up through the first half of the 20th Century, but surely, they cannot roll back the clock and merely pretend they have certain rights which they declined, rejected or were ineffective in implementation.
Most Respectfully,
R
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
You have it back asswards as you believe that sovereignty belongs to the recent illegal arab muslim immigrants, and not to the people with the longest habitation.
remember that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war in 1917 so lost all rights to the land. The Palestinian arab muslims just so happen to have been allies of the Ottomans and so lost
He also forgets the Ottomans permitted jews to buy property in their historic homeland back in the 1800's.
Some arabs might have been born in the Ottoman/mandate but they were not the majority land owners.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, , it indicates just how far out of step you are with the Arab World on the matter of sovereignty; and how far out of step you are with the traditional application of national sovereignty.
(COMMENT)OK, but I am not sure how that applies to my post.
It applies directly to the post on the difference between our beliefs that are commonly held regionally.
(COMMENT)We differ on our basic beliefs.
I believe that sovereignty belongs to the normal inhabitants.
You believe that sovereignty belong to whomever can mooch the most money and guns.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with weaponry, except in the defense against Arab Spring revolutionaries and against Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and other anti-government forces.
No one in the power structure of the Middle East Arabs believes that the "normal inhabitance" have any right to impose sovereignty against the existing government. In the recap of any Arab Spring application, no government body or leadership simply rolled over and simply gave-up to the anti-government forces.
No Arab monarchy, emirate, or military control government --- no Arab failed state, or Arab nation in chaos, has ever demonstrated that a "right" exists without the use of force.
No Arab nation has, in modern or contemporary times demonstrated how to apply the "right to sovereignty" in any regional state. Certainly, the least of which is the 1988 State of Palestine or any supporting faction.
I would ask if any member of this discussion group can point-out any Arab State has been able to demonstrate the success in the application of the "right to self-determination" such that they are included in the top 25 nations ranked "very high" on the UN Human Development Index of countries:
Of the next 25 Countries, the only Arab LEague nation at the high end of the spectrum are monarchies, emirates and military governed Arab Nations (no right of self-determination states).
You are very, very very correct: We differ on our basic beliefs. Your concept of what it means for an Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State to be a people --- included in the "right to self-determination --- is relegate the Palestinians to a ranking outside the top 50 nations.
Even I don't wish that upon the Arab League nation or Middle Eastern State.
Most Respectfully,
RSovereignty has nothing to do with weaponry, except in the defense against Arab Spring revolutionaries and against Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and other anti-government forces.
And anyone else opposed to colonization and occupation.
