Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Phoenall]

OK. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Canadians are a people. The Palestinians are a people. And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.

Are the Jewish people a people? Yes or no?

Do all people(s) (including the Jewish people) have an inherent right to self-determination? Yes or no?

Do they only have an inherent right to self-determination in certain places? If yes, what places?

If they are removed from their place, do they or do they not maintain their rights as people of that place?

That's No, No, No and No.

How about supportive links to your reply

Why aren't the Jews a people in your eyes when the International community say they are

Why don't the Jews not have the same rights as the muslims then ?

Why don't they have rights in certain places ?

The last is easy this is because right of return is not legally binding


But the major reason for your claims seems to be one of RACISM as you don't see the Jews as having any rights do you.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, periodically the pro-Palestinians throw this into the game as a distraction and diversion.

(FOR P F TINMORE ONLY)

ANSWER: The Palestinians have nor ight to self-determination if the term "peoples" is obfuscated. "No definition of indigenous peoples has been offered."

(FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT P F TINMORE)

This question is a matter of subterfuge (deceit used in order to achieve the Palestinian objective and goal). In the context used in this discussion, either everyone has the right --- or --- no one has the right. The meaning of the plural of "people" is unimportant.

Do you have a document for the right to self determination of the Jews?

Wait, what?! Aren't you the one who keeps arguing for the inalienable rights to self-determination? Does this not apply to Jews?

There are multiple UN resolutions and other documents expressing the inalienable right of the Palestinian's to self determination.

I haven't seen any for the Jews. That is why I asked.

So the right of self-determination is not an inherent right. Its only a right when it is granted or assigned or conferred upon a group?

It comes with the territory, literally.

All peoples have the right to self determination.

Define the meaning of peoples.

(OBSERVATION & REFERENCE)

7. Scope of the definition of indigenous peoples.

In the context of the UN declaration, no definition of indigenous peoples has been offered, nor is it expected that one will be offered. The US has determined it does not need to define who is indigenous in order to accept a final draft. We can apply the term domestically consistent with our domestic policy on federally recognized tribes while supporting an approach to this issue that takes account of differing historical experiences in other countries and regions.

If it should become necessary to provide some benchmarks in defining who is indigenous, it will be the position of the United States that the scope of "indigenous peoples" should be determined with reference to fundamental criteria, including but not limited to self-determination, aboriginal status, and distinct culture and customs. The application and relative weight of these criteria should account for differing historical circumstances around the world. For example, in the United States, aboriginal status is a necessary criterion in identifying indigenous peoples. In other countries or regions, it could be appropriate to apply the criteria differently in light of different historical experience, including histories of colonization, migration patterns (including forced migrations), the formation of existing or prior states in those areas, and efforts to assimilate indigenous peoples into surrounding cultures or societies.

In the context of the OAS declaration, a definition of indigenous peoples is under discussion. The US should therefore support the approach described above, but recognize the shared historical experience of aboriginal, precolonial peoples in the Americas region.

SOURCE: U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) Subject: Indigenous Peoples
​

• UN FACT SHEET --- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Cultural Survival advocates for Indigenous Peoples' rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures and political resilience since 1972.
• UN World Health Organization - Health of indigenous peoples Fact sheet N°326 October 2007 -- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Chapter I --- Article 1(2) --- Purpose and Principles --- UN Charter "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
• A/RES/49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination --- using Article 1(2) of the Charter as derivative authority: Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights;
(COMMENT)

While there are earlier documents that use the word "peoples" in their context, the first real UN Authoritative Document (Treaty like Authority) to use the word in reference to the "right of self-determination" is the UN Charter. Unless otherwise stated, all UN Resolution that use the word "poeples," defaults to the intent of the Charter. It is true that both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), both of which entered into force as international law stipulate the UN Charter as the derivative source; and with the CCPR stating in Article 1: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

LOGIC: The word "peoples" is the plural of "people." If the pro-Palestinian movement content that the "right of self-determination" is obfuscated and rendered void because the "Pro-Palestinian" believe it is an unintelligible --- then the right as given in A/RES/51/190 --- "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources" is rendered invalid because the Resolution itself is non-binding, and is only given marginal authority when it uses the derivative source (the UN Charter or the CCPR).

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Canadians are a people. The Palestinians are a people. And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.

Are the Jewish people a people? Yes or no?

Do all people(s) (including the Jewish people) have an inherent right to self-determination? Yes or no?

Do they only have an inherent right to self-determination in certain places? If yes, what places?

If they are removed from their place, do they or do they not maintain their rights as people of that place?

You are letting religion cloud your view as to who are the people of the place.

 

[Challenger]

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people".

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, periodically the pro-Palestinians throw this into the game as a distraction and diversion.

(FOR P F TINMORE ONLY)

ANSWER: The Palestinians have nor ight to self-determination if the term "peoples" is obfuscated. "No definition of indigenous peoples has been offered."

(FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT P F TINMORE)

This question is a matter of subterfuge (deceit used in order to achieve the Palestinian objective and goal). In the context used in this discussion, either everyone has the right --- or --- no one has the right. The meaning of the plural of "people" is unimportant.

Do you have a document for the right to self determination of the Jews?

Wait, what?! Aren't you the one who keeps arguing for the inalienable rights to self-determination? Does this not apply to Jews?

There are multiple UN resolutions and other documents expressing the inalienable right of the Palestinian's to self determination.

I haven't seen any for the Jews. That is why I asked.

So the right of self-determination is not an inherent right. Its only a right when it is granted or assigned or conferred upon a group?

It comes with the territory, literally.

All peoples have the right to self determination.

Define the meaning of peoples.

(OBSERVATION & REFERENCE)

7. Scope of the definition of indigenous peoples.

In the context of the UN declaration, no definition of indigenous peoples has been offered, nor is it expected that one will be offered. The US has determined it does not need to define who is indigenous in order to accept a final draft. We can apply the term domestically consistent with our domestic policy on federally recognized tribes while supporting an approach to this issue that takes account of differing historical experiences in other countries and regions.

If it should become necessary to provide some benchmarks in defining who is indigenous, it will be the position of the United States that the scope of "indigenous peoples" should be determined with reference to fundamental criteria, including but not limited to self-determination, aboriginal status, and distinct culture and customs. The application and relative weight of these criteria should account for differing historical circumstances around the world. For example, in the United States, aboriginal status is a necessary criterion in identifying indigenous peoples. In other countries or regions, it could be appropriate to apply the criteria differently in light of different historical experience, including histories of colonization, migration patterns (including forced migrations), the formation of existing or prior states in those areas, and efforts to assimilate indigenous peoples into surrounding cultures or societies.

In the context of the OAS declaration, a definition of indigenous peoples is under discussion. The US should therefore support the approach described above, but recognize the shared historical experience of aboriginal, precolonial peoples in the Americas region.

SOURCE: U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) Subject: Indigenous Peoples
​

• UN FACT SHEET --- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Cultural Survival advocates for Indigenous Peoples' rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures and political resilience since 1972.
• UN World Health Organization - Health of indigenous peoples Fact sheet N°326 October 2007 -- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Chapter I --- Article 1(2) --- Purpose and Principles --- UN Charter "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
• A/RES/49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination --- using Article 1(2) of the Charter as derivative authority: Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights;
(COMMENT)

While there are earlier documents that use the word "peoples" in their context, the first real UN Authoritative Document (Treaty like Authority) to use the word in reference to the "right of self-determination" is the UN Charter. Unless otherwise stated, all UN Resolution that use the word "poeples," defaults to the intent of the Charter. It is true that both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), both of which entered into force as international law stipulate the UN Charter as the derivative source; and with the CCPR stating in Article 1: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

LOGIC: The word "peoples" is the plural of "people." If the pro-Palestinian movement content that the "right of self-determination" is obfuscated and rendered void because the "Pro-Palestinian" believe it is an unintelligible --- then the right as given in A/RES/51/190 --- "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources" is rendered invalid because the Resolution itself is non-binding, and is only given marginal authority when it uses the derivative source (the UN Charter or the CCPR).

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I told you not to read further. You asked the question: Define the meaning of peoples? Post #50
You asked --- I answered.

The remainder of the post was meant for those with an open mind; relative to the application of unrestricted right on the basis of ethical and moral grounds; and not oriented on a legal compliance approach. Since most aggressive and hostile pro-Palestinians are Jihadist and terrorists, I knew the issue of "smoke" would arise.

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the use of the term "peoples" --- the timeline was not specified in the question. I think I was the one that argued the effective date of the Laws, and the and the non-binding obligation of the resolutions.

In terms of the "indigenous peoples," (Article 1, A/RES/61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) you really don't have a definition for that (so how would you know if it applied or not). And in reference to sovereignty, --- you have no answer for that. In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory. And even after 1988 --- and through to today --- whether the Palestinians have established such control and authority necessary and sufficient to consider they maintained sovereignty over any portion of the territory is very debatable. While Israel maintains two armistice agreements and two peace treaties, all four of which specify a demarcation of one sort or another, the Palestinians only have the Oslo Accord, which (at best) give limited authority over Areas "A and B." Since the abandonment of the Gaza Strip, the indigenous peoples of Gaza establish and maintain governance.

Q: Do the Palestinians maintain a Border Crossing or Immigration Point on any boundary?
Q: Have the Palestinians established any boundaries?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

I'm not sure this is true, relative to Palestine.

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

(SIDEBAR QUESTION)

Exactly what "International, Customary, or other Law" do you allege Israel violated in this regard and when?

HINT: You cannot use The Peace of Westphalia (1648)...
HINT: You cannot use Article 2(4) in Charter 1 of the UN Charter...​

And be a little more specific as to the allegation... Are you saying "conquered"?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, it has a meaning.

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people".

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.

(COMMENT)

The term Israelis includes "All citizens" or "those under the care of the Israeli government" within the territory claimed and outlined by a border maintained by Israel (Golan Heights of Golan Sub-District and East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after 1967) --- including:

• The population of Jewish 75%,
• Muslim 17.5%,
• Christian 2%,
• Druze 1.6%, and other 3.9% (2013 est.) includes atheists, and agnostics.
​

The term Jewish People refers to the Article 4 Mandate for Palestine people (willing to immigrate and establish a Jewish National Home); including the people of the Jewish Agency. OR the population of Jewish 75% of the 8 million Israelis that consider themselves Jewish.

The Jewish People are a subset of the Israeli population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I told you not to read further. You asked the question: Define the meaning of peoples? Post #50
You asked --- I answered.

The remainder of the post was meant for those with an open mind; relative to the application of unrestricted right on the basis of ethical and moral grounds; and not oriented on a legal compliance approach. Since most aggressive and hostile pro-Palestinians are Jihadist and terrorists, I knew the issue of "smoke" would arise.

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the use of the term "peoples" --- the timeline was not specified in the question. I think I was the one that argued the effective date of the Laws, and the and the non-binding obligation of the resolutions.

In terms of the "indigenous peoples," (Article 1, A/RES/61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) you really don't have a definition for that (so how would you know if it applied or not). And in reference to sovereignty, --- you have no answer for that. In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory. And even after 1988 --- and through to today --- whether the Palestinians have established such control and authority necessary and sufficient to consider they maintained sovereignty over any portion of the territory is very debatable. While Israel maintains two armistice agreements and two peace treaties, all four of which specify a demarcation of one sort or another, the Palestinians only have the Oslo Accord, which (at best) give limited authority over Areas "A and B." Since the abandonment of the Gaza Strip, the indigenous peoples of Gaza establish and maintain governance.

Q: Do the Palestinians maintain a Border Crossing or Immigration Point on any boundary?
Q: Have the Palestinians established any boundaries?​

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

I'm not sure this is true, relative to Palestine.

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

(SIDEBAR QUESTION)

Exactly what "International, Customary, or other Law" do you allege Israel violated in this regard and when?

HINT: You cannot use The Peace of Westphalia (1648)...
HINT: You cannot use Article 2(4) in Charter 1 of the UN Charter...​

And be a little more specific as to the allegation... Are you saying "conquered"?

Most Respectfully,
R

"conquered"?

seize area by military force: to take control of a place by force of arms

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Well, it has a meaning.

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people".

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.

(COMMENT)

The term Israelis includes "All citizens" or "those under the care of the Israeli government" within the territory claimed and outlined by a border maintained by Israel (Golan Heights of Golan Sub-District and East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after 1967) --- including:

• The population of Jewish 75%,
• Muslim 17.5%,
• Christian 2%,
• Druze 1.6%, and other 3.9% (2013 est.) includes atheists, and agnostics.
​

The term Jewish People refers to the Article 4 Mandate for Palestine people (willing to immigrate and establish a Jewish National Home); including the people of the Jewish Agency. OR the population of Jewish 75% of the 8 million Israelis that consider themselves Jewish.

The Jewish People are a subset of the Israeli population.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Israeli" is a nationality, not an ethnicity; there's a difference.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

This is somewhat a contentious distinction.

"Israeli" is a nationality, not an ethnicity; there's a difference.

(COMMENT)

Citizenship may be acquired by:

• Birth
• The Law of Return
• Residence
• Naturalization

The Universal Set is in terms of "people;" or the "set" of "all people." There are very characteristics that an individual person (constituent) may exhibit. Some number of constituents may be "long haired," and some may be "bald." Constituents might have other characteristics; some may be "right handed" and some may be left handed." These characteristics may be dependent or independent. For instance, a dominant characteristic can be "blue." And constituents that are "left handed" must also be "Blue." But "Blue" constituents can be any color.

The Laws pertaining to Nationality, Citizenship and Return, are NOT discriminatory; contrary to popular belief, they are characteristic driven in accordance with the original intent by the Allied Powers in 1920 at San Remo: "Establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." A Jewish Constituent is dependent on an external criteria: it must be "a person who was born of a Jewish mother (or the composite factor of having become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion)."

Now the question of the characteristic of "Ethnicity" has been raised. It is an Insignificant characteristic. It is neither dependent or independent to the issues of Laws pertaining to Nationality, Citizenship and Return; a mutually exclusive characteristic. Jewishness can be derived by:

• Birth

Jewish 75% (of which Israel-born 74.4%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 17.4%, Africa-born 5.1%, Asia-born 3.1%), non-Jewish 25% (mostly Arab) (2013 est. CIA Factbook).

To be Israeli Nationality can be derived by:

• Birth
• The Law of Return
• Residence
• Naturalization

Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA. I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait. This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group. Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness. It is why Israel is one of the most racially, culturally and diverse nations in the Middle East; much, much different than any member of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now this is interesting. You have the opportunity to teach me something!

[

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians. I have heard of the:

• right of self-determination,
• rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
• right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
• right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
• right to liberty and security of person,
• victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
• right to be presumed innocent,
​

And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"

• shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
• to hold opinions without interference.
• to acquire a nationality.
• and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable. That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians. (Article 17 CCPR)

• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
​

So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression. It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967. The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel. The West Bank was abandon on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now this is interesting. You have the opportunity to teach me something!

[

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians. I have heard of the:

• right of self-determination,
• rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
• right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
• right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
• right to liberty and security of person,
• victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
• right to be presumed innocent,
​

And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"

• shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
• to hold opinions without interference.
• to acquire a nationality.
• and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable. That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians. (Article 17 CCPR)

• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
​

So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression. It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967. The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel. The West Bank was abandon on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

OK. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Canadians are a people. The Palestinians are a people. And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.

Are the Jewish people a people? Yes or no?

Do all people(s) (including the Jewish people) have an inherent right to self-determination? Yes or no?

Do they only have an inherent right to self-determination in certain places? If yes, what places?

If they are removed from their place, do they or do they not maintain their rights as people of that place?

You are letting religion cloud your view as to who are the people of the place.

While you are letting racist Jew hatred cloud your view as to which groups can claim to be people. The Jews have as much right to a NATIONal home as the arb muslims, and that right extends to doing so on land granted to them by the sovereign owners of the land. Just as they granted 3 times as much land to the arab muslims for their national home in Palestine. It is you bringing it down to religion when you deny the Jews their rights to self determination on their land free from foreign arab muslm interference.

 

[Phoenall]

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people".

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.

Then I ask again for your evidence of the Israeli people having all came from Europe, when the evidence shows that the vast majority came from the surrounding lands ( over 1 million in 1949 alone )

Te indigenous Palestinians being the Jews of course as the UN showed that the arab muslims did not meet with the criteria needed to be called palestinans. So they have the lesser claim under international law and the UN charter.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, periodically the pro-Palestinians throw this into the game as a distraction and diversion.

(FOR P F TINMORE ONLY)

ANSWER: The Palestinians have nor ight to self-determination if the term "peoples" is obfuscated. "No definition of indigenous peoples has been offered."

(FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT P F TINMORE)

This question is a matter of subterfuge (deceit used in order to achieve the Palestinian objective and goal). In the context used in this discussion, either everyone has the right --- or --- no one has the right. The meaning of the plural of "people" is unimportant.

Wait, what?! Aren't you the one who keeps arguing for the inalienable rights to self-determination? Does this not apply to Jews?

There are multiple UN resolutions and other documents expressing the inalienable right of the Palestinian's to self determination.

I haven't seen any for the Jews. That is why I asked.

So the right of self-determination is not an inherent right. Its only a right when it is granted or assigned or conferred upon a group?

It comes with the territory, literally.

All peoples have the right to self determination.

Define the meaning of peoples.

(OBSERVATION & REFERENCE)

7. Scope of the definition of indigenous peoples.

In the context of the UN declaration, no definition of indigenous peoples has been offered, nor is it expected that one will be offered. The US has determined it does not need to define who is indigenous in order to accept a final draft. We can apply the term domestically consistent with our domestic policy on federally recognized tribes while supporting an approach to this issue that takes account of differing historical experiences in other countries and regions.

If it should become necessary to provide some benchmarks in defining who is indigenous, it will be the position of the United States that the scope of "indigenous peoples" should be determined with reference to fundamental criteria, including but not limited to self-determination, aboriginal status, and distinct culture and customs. The application and relative weight of these criteria should account for differing historical circumstances around the world. For example, in the United States, aboriginal status is a necessary criterion in identifying indigenous peoples. In other countries or regions, it could be appropriate to apply the criteria differently in light of different historical experience, including histories of colonization, migration patterns (including forced migrations), the formation of existing or prior states in those areas, and efforts to assimilate indigenous peoples into surrounding cultures or societies.

In the context of the OAS declaration, a definition of indigenous peoples is under discussion. The US should therefore support the approach described above, but recognize the shared historical experience of aboriginal, precolonial peoples in the Americas region.

SOURCE: U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) Subject: Indigenous Peoples
​

• UN FACT SHEET --- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Cultural Survival advocates for Indigenous Peoples' rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures and political resilience since 1972.
• UN World Health Organization - Health of indigenous peoples Fact sheet N°326 October 2007 -- Who are indigenous peoples?
• Chapter I --- Article 1(2) --- Purpose and Principles --- UN Charter "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
• A/RES/49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination --- using Article 1(2) of the Charter as derivative authority: Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights;
(COMMENT)

While there are earlier documents that use the word "peoples" in their context, the first real UN Authoritative Document (Treaty like Authority) to use the word in reference to the "right of self-determination" is the UN Charter. Unless otherwise stated, all UN Resolution that use the word "poeples," defaults to the intent of the Charter. It is true that both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), both of which entered into force as international law stipulate the UN Charter as the derivative source; and with the CCPR stating in Article 1: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

LOGIC: The word "peoples" is the plural of "people." If the pro-Palestinian movement content that the "right of self-determination" is obfuscated and rendered void because the "Pro-Palestinian" believe it is an unintelligible --- then the right as given in A/RES/51/190 --- "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources" is rendered invalid because the Resolution itself is non-binding, and is only given marginal authority when it uses the derivative source (the UN Charter or the CCPR).

It cannot be the case that one people (ie Palestinians) have a right that is superior to any other people (ie Israelis). Whether that right is declared "inherent" (a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable) --- it cannot be the case that one people (the Palestinians) can hindrance or restraint another people (the Israelis) from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

So when did this "indigenous rights thing" come about, and when did it become illegal to conquer land.

A clue UN res 242 hints at it possibly becoming international law, but no date was set for its implementation. And that was agreed after Israel had conquered gaza, golan heights and the west bank.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I told you not to read further. You asked the question: Define the meaning of peoples? Post #50
You asked --- I answered.

The remainder of the post was meant for those with an open mind; relative to the application of unrestricted right on the basis of ethical and moral grounds; and not oriented on a legal compliance approach. Since most aggressive and hostile pro-Palestinians are Jihadist and terrorists, I knew the issue of "smoke" would arise.

Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the use of the term "peoples" --- the timeline was not specified in the question. I think I was the one that argued the effective date of the Laws, and the and the non-binding obligation of the resolutions.

In terms of the "indigenous peoples," (Article 1, A/RES/61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) you really don't have a definition for that (so how would you know if it applied or not). And in reference to sovereignty, --- you have no answer for that. In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory. And even after 1988 --- and through to today --- whether the Palestinians have established such control and authority necessary and sufficient to consider they maintained sovereignty over any portion of the territory is very debatable. While Israel maintains two armistice agreements and two peace treaties, all four of which specify a demarcation of one sort or another, the Palestinians only have the Oslo Accord, which (at best) give limited authority over Areas "A and B." Since the abandonment of the Gaza Strip, the indigenous peoples of Gaza establish and maintain governance.

Q: Do the Palestinians maintain a Border Crossing or Immigration Point on any boundary?
Q: Have the Palestinians established any boundaries?​

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.

And the group that gets in first wins the day, which Israel did in 1948 before the arab muslims had got out of bed. It was only after the Jewish farmers and their wives started to destroy the well armed arab league forces that they tried to subvert the Jews declaration illegally. Your claims that the arab muslims should be granted self determination while removing that of the Jews shows that you just don't want the Jews to live. The Jews were granted 22% of Palestine the rest went to the Palestinians, can you understand that fact and what it means ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?

You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​

And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel controlled 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Where is it that gives (inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?

The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?

(COMMENT)

None of these rights were violated. The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy. While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?​

The people who came from Europe to take the country from the natives started it.

REMEMBER: "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.​

Rights are not handed out by the people with the guns. They are inherent to the people.