Palestinians have negative rights.RE: Are the Palestinians a real people?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
John Rawls, often described as the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, set ideas in motion that are the bedrock in the Principles of justice. This theory establishes two principles of justice from the original position.
◈ The first of these expresses, that 'Basic' liberty includes freedoms of conscience, association and expression as well as democratic rights.
◈ The second principle of equality sets the guarantee of liberties that represent meaningful options for all in society and ensure distributive justice.
These insights approach and include a personal property right, slightly different from what is generally understood. It is defended in terms of "moral capacities" and "self-respect," rather than an appeal to a natural right (inherent rights) of self-ownership.
(COMMENT)Nobody has to do something for people to exercise their rights.
In his book, • A Theory of Justice • Rawls formulated a comprehensive theory of international politics with the publication of • The Law of Peoples.• He claimed there that "well-ordered" peoples could be either "liberal" or "decent". Rawls's basic distinction in international politics is that his preferred emphasis on a society of peoples is separate from the more conventional and historical discussion of international politics as based on relationships between states (as in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States A/RES/25/2625).
You are correct. But only in the sense of "action: (See; Negative vs. Positive Rights)
◈ A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction.
◈ A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.
In the discussion of "Rights" relative to the Question of Palestine, we have to be careful... "Negative and positive rights frequently conflict because carrying out the duties conferred by positive rights often entails infringing upon negative rights." (Globalization101 > Issues in Depth > Human Rights > Negative vs. Positive Rights) And the State of Israel will or will not take action based upon the best interest of Israel; just like most countries.
We've discussed this before when you raise these issues of "rights." IF Israel has effective control of territory (1967), before the Independence of the Arab Palestinian People (1988); and the Arab Palestinians demand that Israel relinquish its control over that territory in favor of the Arab Palestinian, THEN the Arab Palestinians are demanding and "action." But IF, as you say, "• Nobody has to do something for people to exercise their rights •" THEN the demand becomes contingent based on the outcome of an Arab Palestinian appeal to the Israels on the natural right (inherent rights) of self-ownership as determined by the Israelis.
Since it is the policy of the Arab Palestinian that armed conflict is the only viable solution, there is no likelihood that Israel will capitulate.
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, a product of the situations they create?
