P F Tinmore, toastman, HistoryBefore67,
et al,
First, let me say, that "zionism" is not a derogatory connotation.
Second, we've gone over this several times before in other threads.
Hmmmm....
At no time have the Jews relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.
Now we're getting somewhere.
The right to sovereignty belongs to the natives.
Israel was created by foreigners.
I'm pretty sure Rocco threw that statement in the garbage for you . Where did you ever see the word foreigners ?
(REFERENCEs LINKS)
(COMMENT)
POINT #1: There is no reference to the limitation of the right to "self-determination" with respect to "foreigners" (xenophobia being a concept near universally opposed). In fact, the term "foreigners" is not used in the Covenant or the Charter.
(Incidentally, the right to self-determination was not expressed in the Covenant.) The UN does speak, as you have pointed out, about the "non-interference"
(LINK: A/50/635/Add.2 27 February, 1996) However, as explained before, that terminology was with "respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes;" having nothing to do with "foreigners." The territory in question, undefined during the Ottoman Rule, and artificially defined during the period of the British Mandate, was never sovereign unto itself; being subject either to the Ottoman Empire, or the Mandatory under Article 22 of the Covenant. It was never sovereign. The "interference" was actually the part the Arab League played in the manipulation of the Arab Higher Committee, when in the partition plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.
(Incidentally, the term "destiny" is not used once in the Charter.) The concept of respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, was based on the idea the United Nations would promote:
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples is not defined beyond these observances. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not adopted until 2007 (
LINK: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)], which is not retroactively applicable to the actions taken more than a half century ago. But even if it was, it clearly does not give a specific advantage to "Indigenous people" over "Immigrants." They are equal.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples said:
Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law.
The idea that there is some international law or consensus that extends the indigenous Palestinian greater rights and freedoms over the legitimate immigrant is clearly erroneous; both as a mental exercise and as humanitarian ideal.
POINT #2: The Jewish people in the former Mandate of Palestine were not foreigners in the sense that they spontaneously arrived or invaded the Mandate. They were invited by a succession of ruling Sultans during the Ottoman Rule
(even escorted by the Sultan's fleet in the late 1400's) and then, encouraged to immigrate by His Royal Highness, Emir Faisal, for the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz; in cooperation with the World Zionist Organization. This invitation was extended by the Arab King having dominion
(before the Mandate, in 1919) "carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917"
(The Balfour Declaration). They were not uninvited invaders to Arab Lands with sinister motives. And again, four plus years later, the Mandate further encourage immigration.
POINT #3: The central theme, repeated over and over again that the World Zionist Organization (WZO) is foreign, and thereby implying some illegitimate to the process of accomplishing the goal of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, is simply erroneous. The WZO is sovereignty immaterial and non-specific
(a global organization). Further more, it was the central point of contact for the Arab King
(having dominion) to used as a channel to coordinate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. However, the Jewish Agency was an instrumentality created by the Article 4 of the Mandate (
LINK: Mandate for Palestine), and required by the Mandate to be accredited by the WZO. This development was, by name
(Jewish Agency) was conceived in Article 4, of the San Remo Convention a full two years before the Mandate, and to assist in the compliance with Articles of the agreement between the HRH and the WZO. It was not some spontaneous organization that just sprung into existence as an externality.
POINT #4: The Palestinian, of today, inherits a legacy of flip-flops on its position. What they advocate today is not constant with the theme they historically they have held. The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) was immediately followed by outbreaks of violence by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Population, after plan was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States
(the real external "interference"). Then, the HoAP later, after a number of irrational arguments claiming various violations of the Covanent and Charter, a few failed wars, and a couple ill fated insurrections, they adhere to international legitimacy and respect General Assembly Resolution 181 (II)
(as stated in Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General). Yet, later again, when Hamas becomes a significant influence and puppet of the Iranians, they flip-flop back to claiming the illegitimacy of the Resolution. The HoAP does not have any political consistency.
Most Respectfully,
R
