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.
It is the people of the place who have the right to self determination. The people from someplace else do not.
It does include Jews but not the ones from Europe.The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
It does include Jews but not the ones from Europe.The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
So... we should exclude the falsely labeled Pal'istanians (the welfare cheats who are from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc.,) as Pal'istanians.It does include Jews but not the ones from Europe.The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
(COMMENT)There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.
The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh WOW. Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis are not so insecure and have no need for a special acknowledgement.
(COMMENT)There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.
The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.
The Israelis, indeed, most of the people on the planet, are quite satisfied with the all inclusive statement found in Article 1 of the UN Charter.
I think there are about 139 countries in the world (not sure). But I can tell you that only a handful of peoples have been mentioned relative to the right of self-determination. I don't recall ever seeing a UN Resolution mentioning the American right to self-determination either. That doesn't mean we are not included in the "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
See, your problem is that you don't actually make decisions based on principles which you can apply universally. You adopt the base notion that the Jewish people are not eligible for self-determination and then work to justify why that is so. And it fails you every time because it is not based on objective, moral principles.
You are forced to acknowledge that the Jewish people actually do have rights to self-determination, but then have to qualify that in order to support your pre-determined position. Oops.
You claim that the Jewish people in the Diaspora have lost their rights to claim to be part of the Jewish people, and have thus lost their rights to self-determination in the historical, ancestral and religious territory of the Jewish people which you admit actually HAVE the right to self-determination in their historical, ancestral and religious territory. Thus you make the CRITERIA for self-determination to have the quality of not being forced into a Diaspora. Which, if applied equally, means that a successful ethnic cleansing REMOVES the right to self-determination. Which means, in turn, that the "people of a place" means only those who are currently inhabiting the place and that all those who "lost" the place are stripped of their rights.
You claim that the Jewish people in the Diaspora, blah, blah,blah.
They are not diaspora if they have no ancestors from that territory.
All peoples have the right to self determination. You just don't know the definition of "peoples."
The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
You are still dancing around the issues.P F Tinmore, et al,
The casual way in which you say this, lends itself to a misunderstanding.
(COMMENT)Not once did I say that "Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" --- as you imply. It is the difficult logic to assume that the HoAP can incite a conflict and then claim to be a victim of the injuries incurred.
• What conflict did they incite when the colonists came down from Europe to steal their country?
√ The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.
Remember: In the sense of sovereignty (not civil rights in terms of property law) it was not "their country." No one can steal "their country" because the Council and the Allied Powers did not make disposition on the territory.
Remember: Whether you want to characterize the encouraged immigration as a "colonial project" or what it was, immigration under the Mandate, to achieve a principle goal of the Mandate (establishment of the Jewish National Home) is really up to you. But clearly, was not an act of aggression. (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and General Assembly Resolution 3314)
State sovereignty is found within international convention known as the “Westphalian System,” dating back to 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia; the treaty that concluded the Thirty Years’ War. The notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory is a concept that builds on the foundation regional peace. Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures. And this is where we get the notion of "no external interference."
Most Respectfully,
R
The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.
http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf
Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.
The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.
Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.
How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.
The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh WOW. Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis are not so insecure and have no need for a special acknowledgement.
(COMMENT)There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.
The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.
The Israelis, indeed, most of the people on the planet, are quite satisfied with the all inclusive statement found in Article 1 of the UN Charter.
I think there are about 139 countries in the world (not sure). But I can tell you that only a handful of peoples have been mentioned relative to the right of self-determination. I don't recall ever seeing a UN Resolution mentioning the American right to self-determination either. That doesn't mean we are not included in the "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Most Respectfully,
ROh WOW. Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis are not so insecure and have no need for a special acknowledgement.
You're joking, right?
Nobody is as more insecure about its legitimacy, or lack thereof, than Israel. They always call Israel the state of Israel or the Jewish state. They constantly use the term state like they are trying to sell something. Who else does that. Do you ever hear anyone say the state of Brazil or the state of Italy?
It does include Jews but not the ones from Europe.The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
P F Tinmore
See, your problem is that you don't actually make decisions based on principles which you can apply universally. You adopt the base notion that the Jewish people are not eligible for self-determination and then work to justify why that is so. And it fails you every time because it is not based on objective, moral principles.
You are forced to acknowledge that the Jewish people actually do have rights to self-determination, but then have to qualify that in order to support your pre-determined position. Oops.
You claim that the Jewish people in the Diaspora have lost their rights to claim to be part of the Jewish people, and have thus lost their rights to self-determination in the historical, ancestral and religious territory of the Jewish people which you admit actually HAVE the right to self-determination in their historical, ancestral and religious territory. Thus you make the CRITERIA for self-determination to have the quality of not being forced into a Diaspora. Which, if applied equally, means that a successful ethnic cleansing REMOVES the right to self-determination. Which means, in turn, that the "people of a place" means only those who are currently inhabiting the place and that all those who "lost" the place are stripped of their rights.You claim that the Jewish people in the Diaspora, blah, blah,blah.
They are not diaspora if they have no ancestors from that territory.
All peoples have the right to self determination. You just don't know the definition of "peoples."
The Jewish people ARE the "people of the place". The Jewish people are both the current "people of the place" and the oldest surviving culture of the place. Denying either of these things is ludicrous.
By what criteria can you possibly define "the people of the place" and have it NOT INCLUDE Jews?
Europeans or Inuit whose ancestors converted to Judaism are not "people of the place". Mestizos and Castizos whose ancestors converted to Christianity do not magically become native Europeans. You people just don't get it.
Judaism is a religion. The European Zionists that colonized Palestine were Europeans that practiced Judaism. They were not natives of Palestine. They were natives of various European countries.
The Mestizos in Latin America, who have some amount of Spanish ancestry, are not natives of Spain. Just as North Americans who have a mixture of European ancestry are not natives of any European country or Europe. They are natives of North America.
"Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
