BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

[Shusha]

You keep attempting to throw hundreds of thousands of colonial settlers into that mix.

I have not yet got to that point in the discussion about "settlers" of either the Jewish or the Arab kind. I am starting with basic principles as a foundation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Post #284, in response to my question, "The Jewish people ALSO have an inalienable right to self-determination. Yes or no?", you responded, and I quote:

The Jewish people who have ancestors from there do.

Put together that reads: The Jewish people who have ancestors from there have an inalienable right to self-determination.

I'm not trying to prove "fact" here. I am trying to clarify your opinion. You agree that at least SOME Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination. You SAID so.

So, the next question I am asking you is this: Given that (at least some) Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination and given that (at least some) Arabs who define themselves as uniquely "Palestinian" have an inalienable right to self-determination -- are they permitted to have a self-determination separate from each other?

Not asking which land, or how much land, or where, or when or anything else. I am ONLY asking about the concept. An analogy would be Czechoslovakia. For a time they managed a joint sovereignty. Eventually, they mutually decided that they would best express their self-determination separately and became Slovakia and the Czech Republic. If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

Ba cause they did no want to. The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted all Palestinians to be Palestinians without distinction.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You keep attempting to throw hundreds of thousands of colonial settlers into that mix.

I have not yet got to that point in the discussion about "settlers" of either the Jewish or the Arab kind. I am starting with basic principles as a foundation.

I am. It is you who keeps throwing in the settlers.

 

[rylah]

Post #284, in response to my question, "The Jewish people ALSO have an inalienable right to self-determination. Yes or no?", you responded, and I quote:

The Jewish people who have ancestors from there do.

Put together that reads: The Jewish people who have ancestors from there have an inalienable right to self-determination.

I'm not trying to prove "fact" here. I am trying to clarify your opinion. You agree that at least SOME Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination. You SAID so.

So, the next question I am asking you is this: Given that (at least some) Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination and given that (at least some) Arabs who define themselves as uniquely "Palestinian" have an inalienable right to self-determination -- are they permitted to have a self-determination separate from each other?

Not asking which land, or how much land, or where, or when or anything else. I am ONLY asking about the concept. An analogy would be Czechoslovakia. For a time they managed a joint sovereignty. Eventually, they mutually decided that they would best express their self-determination separately and became Slovakia and the Czech Republic. If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

Ba cause they did no want to. The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted all Palestinians to be Palestinians without distinction.

Totally wrong. The Jews came into a mutual recognition with the Syrian King, that they would be allowed to settle in most of historical parts of Israel, including Jordan.
This didn't happen because Egypt/Muslim Brotherhood got the upper hand in the Arab world.
Yasser )al-Qudwa) Arafat was a big part of it.

 

[Shusha]

Ba cause they did no want to. The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted all Palestinians to be Palestinians without distinction.

Really? You've got a link to a survey of all Jews who were present and citizens since 1922, and all their descendants which says that not one of them wants a Jewish State?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Post #284, in response to my question, "The Jewish people ALSO have an inalienable right to self-determination. Yes or no?", you responded, and I quote:

The Jewish people who have ancestors from there do.

Put together that reads: The Jewish people who have ancestors from there have an inalienable right to self-determination.

I'm not trying to prove "fact" here. I am trying to clarify your opinion. You agree that at least SOME Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination. You SAID so.

So, the next question I am asking you is this: Given that (at least some) Jews have an inalienable right to self-determination and given that (at least some) Arabs who define themselves as uniquely "Palestinian" have an inalienable right to self-determination -- are they permitted to have a self-determination separate from each other?

Not asking which land, or how much land, or where, or when or anything else. I am ONLY asking about the concept. An analogy would be Czechoslovakia. For a time they managed a joint sovereignty. Eventually, they mutually decided that they would best express their self-determination separately and became Slovakia and the Czech Republic. If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

If they can do it, morally and legally -- what prohibits Israel and Arab Palestine from the same?

Ba cause they did no want to. The Palestinians, including the Jews, wanted all Palestinians to be Palestinians without distinction.

Totally wrong. The Jews came into a mutual recognition with the Syrian King, that they would be allowed to settle in most of historical parts of Israel, including Jordan.
This didn't happen because Egypt/Muslim Brotherhood got the upper hand in the Arab world.
Yasser )al-Qudwa) Arafat was a big part of it.

The Jews came into a mutual recognition with the Syrian King, that they would be allowed to settle in most of historical parts of Israel, including Jordan.

The Palestinian Jews did that?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You attempt to confuse these issues at every opprtunity.

What you think you heard, is not always what was said. In this case, you have to understand that the phrase: "their own international borders" means something different than what you would suspect. You have to ask yourself:

• Who are the Arab Palestinians?
• What international borders do they maintain?
• What border checkpoints do they control?

The Palestinians are the people who obtained Palestinian citizenship after the Treaty of Lausanne.

The international borders that were finalized with the separation of Transjordan in 1922.

The border checkpoints are controlled by the occupation.

(COMMENT)

You reference about the nationality (not citizenship) is found in:

Lausanne Treaty: Part I
POLITICAL CLAUSES
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

This does not confer anything to the habitually resident of the Palestinian territory. The habitually resident in territory was not a party to the treaty. The Treaty of Lausanne is between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. {If I promise Shasha to give you $10, you have not o claim against me for the $10. Only Shasha can enforce the claim.} It is the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 that came before the Treaty, and gave the language to the Treaty - two years before - and which specifically addresses the citizenship Issue:

• For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:–​

(a) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b) All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
You will notice that this language deals directly with the issue of citizenship for those in Palestine. ​

they mean the entirety of the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine

There you go with that former mandate propaganda again.

(COMMENT)

In this case, relative to the meaning of "Palestine," you must go to the Palestine Order in Council 10 August 1922:

PART I.
PRELIMINARY.

Title.
1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The territory that once was under the Mandate of Palestine, is now the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine; which technically would include the former Trans-Jordan.

The name Palestine was the territorial name used through the centuries, but NOT a name for a specific administrative subdivision under the Ottoman Empire. If you read the
Ministry of Local State of Palestine: Cities Report 2016 (Download required), you will get a greater understanding of how the Arab Palestinians see themselves.

[
Why should they?

Why should the Palestinians negotiate their inalienable rights with Israel?

The Palestinians have no wars or disputes with its neighbors.

(COMMENT)

First, Israel has every right that the Palestinians could possibly lay claim to, and probably much more. Israel (a Jewish State), in addressing peace terms with Egypt and Jordan (Arab League Member States), has demonstrated its ability to seriously engage the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation with these two States. The Palestinians (Arab) has not been able to reciprocate peace overtures to Israel.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not had any truly productive talks since July 2000; which ended without further agreement the permanent status of questions pertaining to borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem.

Disputes:

• The Gaza Strip has 7 border crossings - all but one - the Rafah crossing - are controlled by Israel. The Rafah Border Crossing , is controlled by Egypt; closed most of the time for security reasons.

• While Israeli-Jordanian relations are very cold at the moment --- with Jordan refusing to permit the Israeli Ambassador back to the Amman Embassy. However, it is the thousands of Arab Palestinians (not able to cross Allenby Bridge from Jordan into Israel) that Jordan is penalizing.

• Given the security conditions in the Arab Palestinian Camps in Lebanon, the relationship between the two are not exactly perfect.​

In any event, the Arab Palestinians may not be at war with either Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, but you cannot say that the relations are all that cordial.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You attempt to confuse these issues at every opprtunity.

What you think you heard, is not always what was said. In this case, you have to understand that the phrase: "their own international borders" means something different than what you would suspect. You have to ask yourself:

• Who are the Arab Palestinians?
• What international borders do they maintain?
• What border checkpoints do they control?

The Palestinians are the people who obtained Palestinian citizenship after the Treaty of Lausanne.

The international borders that were finalized with the separation of Transjordan in 1922.

The border checkpoints are controlled by the occupation.

(COMMENT)

You reference about the nationality (not citizenship) is found in:

Lausanne Treaty: Part I
POLITICAL CLAUSES
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

This does not confer anything to the habitually resident of the Palestinian territory. The habitually resident in territory was not a party to the treaty. The Treaty of Lausanne is between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. {If I promise Shasha to give you $10, you have not o claim against me for the $10. Only Shasha can enforce the claim.} It is the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 that came before the Treaty, and gave the language to the Treaty - two years before - and which specifically addresses the citizenship Issue:

• For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:–​

(a) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b) All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
You will notice that this language deals directly with the issue of citizenship for those in Palestine. ​

they mean the entirety of the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine

There you go with that former mandate propaganda again.

(COMMENT)

In this case, relative to the meaning of "Palestine," you must go to the Palestine Order in Council 10 August 1922:

PART I.
PRELIMINARY.

Title.
1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The territory that once was under the Mandate of Palestine, is now the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine; which technically would include the former Trans-Jordan.

The name Palestine was the territorial name used through the centuries, but NOT a name for a specific administrative subdivision under the Ottoman Empire. If you read the
Ministry of Local State of Palestine: Cities Report 2016 (Download required), you will get a greater understanding of how the Arab Palestinians see themselves.

[
Why should they?

Why should the Palestinians negotiate their inalienable rights with Israel?

The Palestinians have no wars or disputes with its neighbors.

(COMMENT)

First, Israel has every right that the Palestinians could possibly lay claim to, and probably much more. Israel (a Jewish State), in addressing peace terms with Egypt and Jordan (Arab League Member States), has demonstrated its ability to seriously engage the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation with these two States. The Palestinians (Arab) has not been able to reciprocate peace overtures to Israel.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not had any truly productive talks since July 2000; which ended without further agreement the permanent status of questions pertaining to borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem.

Disputes:

• The Gaza Strip has 7 border crossings - all but one - the Rafah crossing - are controlled by Israel. The Rafah Border Crossing , is controlled by Egypt; closed most of the time for security reasons.

• While Israeli-Jordanian relations are very cold at the moment --- with Jordan refusing to permit the Israeli Ambassador back to the Amman Embassy. However, it is the thousands of Arab Palestinians (not able to cross Allenby Bridge from Jordan into Israel) that Jordan is penalizing.

• Given the security conditions in the Arab Palestinian Camps in Lebanon, the relationship between the two are not exactly perfect.​

In any event, the Arab Palestinians may not be at war with either Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, but you cannot say that the relations are all that cordial.

Most Respectfully,
R

The order in council of 1922 was by Britain is the occupying power on Turkish land. That occupation ended with the Treaty of Lausanne and could no longer apply.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians (Arab) has not been able to reciprocate peace overtures to Israel.

You are ducking the question.

Why should the Palestinians negotiate their inalienable rights with Israel?

 

[Linkiloo]

The Palestinians (Arab) has not been able to reciprocate peace overtures to Israel.

You are ducking the question.

Why should the Palestinians negotiate their inalienable rights with Israel?

Why should Jews do so with Palestinians....and around we go...yawn.

 

[montelatici]

Unforunately, it is coming down to a long-term demographic zero sum war. No chance of a South Africa style compromise. It will be a Rhodesia/Algeria solution as it is doubtful that the non-Jews can be virtually eliminated as a demographic force like the American Indians or Aboriginals in Australia,

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, this is such a misinterpretation of events.

The order in council of 1922 was by Britain is the occupying power on Turkish land. That occupation ended with the Treaty of Lausanne and could no longer apply.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA → joint British and French) military administration of former Ottoman Empire territory (1918–20) after the Armistice of Mudros. On 1 July 1920, the military occupation - OETA, was dissolved and transitioned into a Civil Administration under the authority of a High Commissioner (see Interim Report on Civil Administration). The action was sanctioned and approved by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at what came to be known as the San Remo Convention (April 1920).

At this point in history, the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) was not envisioned. It was assumed that the Treaty of Sevres (sign by the Ottomans but not ratified) would be the controlling legal instrument.

Two important intentions of the Supreme Council (1920) were:

• The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

• Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​

The Treaty of Lausanne was not the instrument which set the tone for the Administration of Palestine; and it did not exist during the Occupation. Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne play a part in the creation of the Order in Council, or the Mandate, (and its many amendments); which came before the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

Like "P F Tinmore," many Arab Palestinians have tunnel vision, and fixation bandwagon slogans like "inalienable rights." More often than not when the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) beats the drum of "inalienable rights," they, are reading the music from the very ambiguous A/RES/3236 (XXIX) which Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine.

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

(c) The inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property.​

The Palestinians (Arab) has not been able to reciprocate peace overtures to Israel.

You are ducking the question.

Why should the Palestinians negotiate their inalienable rights with Israel?

(COMMENT)

The implication comes in the form of a loaded question; presupposing that Israel is even interested in inalienable rights of the Arab Palestinians (That which cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.). What Israel has nearly given-up on are the essentials under the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States A//RES/25/2625 (XXV):

※ Based on the respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination; for the Israeli people as well as everyone else.​

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

The principle of sovereign equality of States,

The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,​

Unfortunately, it is coming down to a long-term demographic zero sum war. No chance of a South Africa style compromise. It will be a Rhodesia/Algeria solution as it is doubtful that the non-Jews can be virtually eliminated as a demographic force like the American Indians or Aboriginals in Australia,

(COMMENT)

I'm not quite that pessimistic; and I don't think the Israelis are anywhere near making that assessment. I ave come to believe that the People of Israel have come t have little use for the United Nations (UN). What little respect the Israel might have had for the UN, was severely crippled when they passed A/RES/3379 (1975) which equated Zionism as a form of Racism and Racial Discrimination (even though it was revoked by A/RES/46/86 in 1991). The Israelis are very cautious in regards to any dealings with the UN General Assembly, which has demonstrated (on multiple occasions) it has a very strong and latent antisemitic. There is no question that Israel will act rationally in the UN; but, it would not trust the UN to act in the protection of the Israel, it sovereign integrity or its people.

The Arab Palestinian presents a clear danger to the sovereign integrity of its nation ⇒ the only one of its kind. It must maintain a posture itself and be wiling to act such that it can handle any aggressors on the approach with hostile intent.

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

the State of Palestine has made no attempt to enter into a PEACE Treaty with either Israel or any adjacent Arab League State.

Erm...why would the State of Palestine attempt to enter into a peace treaty with any adjecent Arab League State? Whenever was the State of Palestine at war with any of them?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ Challenger, et al,

Well, there are many peaceful treaties and pacts signed between countries. The UN Treaty Collection and Archive is full of them. Such peaceful agreement, among other things, can help reduce the potential for International Armed Conflicts.

the State of Palestine has made no attempt to enter into a PEACE Treaty with either Israel or any adjacent Arab League State.

Erm...why would the State of Palestine attempt to enter into a peace treaty with any adjecent Arab League State? Whenever was the State of Palestine at war with any of them?

(COMMENT)

Treaties are the larger name for agreements under international law that include but not limited to: protocols, covenants, conventions, pacts, or the exchange of letters,

In the case of Palestine (Gaza Strip + West Bank) such Treaties would help establish the define International Borders with Egypt and Jordan. If, successful, the Border Crossings and associated terminals might become more accessible.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

The Jewish people did and do want to return and live in their ancestral lands.

Really? Zionists may have done in the 19th century, but throughout their existance they were considered fringe whack-jobs by the Jewish populations around the world. In the centuries of no restrictions on Jewish travel, there was never a mass Jewish migration from Europe; even when Spain's Jewish population were expelled they chose en-masse to settle in Ottoman European provinces or in the major cities of Anatolia, rather then their so called "ancestral homelands".

The international community at the time agreed with them.

Did they? Which time was that then?

(And those States cemented the reality by cleansing themselves of their Jewish populations.)

Only in retaliation for Zionist ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "self-determination"; that's yet another Zionist lie.

There is nothing either racist or supremacist about wanting to return to your ancestral lands.

No, but their is when you drive out the native incumbant population to create a "native free" state exclusively for your own little group; when you categorise your citizens into "Arab-Israeli" and "Jewish Israeli" so one group can be easily identified and discriminated against; that is racist and supremacist..,welcome to Zionist Israel!

Why don't you label that as being racist and supremacist?

It's neither racist nor supremacist when Palestinians want to return to the homes they were forced out of and want to be free from foreign occupation, domination and colonisation. Once upon a time they were happy to accept Jewish immigration, but the Zionist plan to disposess them changed their minds.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the case of Palestine (Gaza Strip + West Bank) such Treaties would help establish the define International Borders with Egypt and Jordan. If, successful, the Border Crossings and associated terminals might become more accessible.

Palestine already has international borders with Egypt and Jordan.

I don't see any sabre rattling between Palestine and its neighbors.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Treaties are the larger name for agreements under international law that include but not limited to: protocols, covenants, conventions, pacts, or the exchange of letters,

Indeed, and treaties are void if they do not conform to international law. No treaty can violate the rights of a people.

For example: If Germany and Spain sign a treaty stating that they have a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be valid?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
The Jewish people did and do want to return and live in their ancestral lands.

Originally posted by Challenger
Really? Zionists may have done in the 19th century, but throughout their existance they were considered fringe whack-jobs by the Jewish populations around the world. In the centuries of no restrictions on Jewish travel, there was never a mass Jewish migration from Europe; even when Spain's Jewish population were expelled they chose en-masse to settle in Ottoman European provinces or in the major cities of Anatolia, rather then their so called "ancestral homelands".

This is a joke that circulated among the european jewish communities during the first decades of the 20th century, mocking what was widely regarded by them as the tiny lunatic zionist fringe:

A Zionist is a Jew who gives money to a second Jew in order to send a third Jew to Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

You always crack me up when you post this after Israel throws people out of their homes and steals their land.