Civilians vs Combatents

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you don't read very well.

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):

"Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,"

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
​

So we are specifically addressing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the City of Jerusalem. None of which were under the exclusive control of the Arab Palestinian at the time they were occupied in 1967 by the Israeli. So none of that territory was taken, in any way shape or form, from the Arab Palestinian.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

• The right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The meaning of "Palestine" was the territory formerly under the Mandate (1948). In 1988, without objection or preventative action, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people, was granted observer status after declaring independence.

Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory, The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).
SOURCE: Arab League

You will notice that, unlike the Arab League in 1948, Israel did not attempt to obstruct by military force, the the right of self-determination by the Jewish People to establish the Jewish State of Israel; pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence under the same authority in the Palestinian Declaration: "international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947."

The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative recognized by the world community as a whole, acknowledge the recognized this event and the conditions.

External to what if there is no territory?

• The right to independence and sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one argues the "RIGHT" of independence and self-determination. That question was never even up for debate. Everyone acknowledged fact that in 1988, that transpired.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

THIS bares repeating again: "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)," And it is in this acknowledgement we see two things:

• The right of self-determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity;
• We see the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Jewish state as outlined in the Resolution.
​

What does this mean without territory?

• The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

BEFORE you can have territorial integrity, first you must have control of some territory. The "right" to something does not mean you have something. The right to bear arms does not mean you actually have arms. Nor does it mean that if you go to the government and say, you have the right to bear arms, don't expect them to hand you a weapon. The "right" does not means you "have."

What does this mean without territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as in the preceding example; you can have the "right to territorial integrity" and actually NOT have a territory. One does not trump the other.

No smoke.
Just four answers to four simple questions.

(COMMENT)

Yes, 4 simple questions and a reply with for simple answers.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):​

That is not the one I was talking about. The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

 

[Shusha]

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

There doesn't have to be. They are INHERENT rights, remember? That is your argument. The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

What makes you think the Palestinians have no territory? Of course they have territory. They govern Areas A and B and Gaza. Furthermore, Israel clearly has no interest in retaining these territories, as demonstrated by the signing of the Oslo Accords and by the disengagement of Gaza.

The dispute lies in determining the final boundaries and ethnic diversity (or lack) of each territory. That's the end game.

The problem, ideologically, is that you, many others on this forum and internationally and the Arabs (the HoAP) have a different end game. Your end game is that the Jewish people must have no rights, no territory, no sovereignty and no self-determination. Because the Jewish people somehow don't COUNT. I've said this before, no doubt I will say it many more times for as long as I participate on this forum -- that is the fundamental, foundational source of the conflict.

 

[Shusha]

The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

What false assumption? That inherent rights apply to ALL peoples and not just to some?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, what a invalid answer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you don't read very well.

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):

"Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,"

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
​

So we are specifically addressing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the City of Jerusalem. None of which were under the exclusive control of the Arab Palestinian at the time they were occupied in 1967 by the Israeli. So none of that territory was taken, in any way shape or form, from the Arab Palestinian.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

• The right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The meaning of "Palestine" was the territory formerly under the Mandate (1948). In 1988, without objection or preventative action, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people, was granted observer status after declaring independence.

Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory, The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).
SOURCE: Arab League

You will notice that, unlike the Arab League in 1948, Israel did not attempt to obstruct by military force, the the right of self-determination by the Jewish People to establish the Jewish State of Israel; pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence under the same authority in the Palestinian Declaration: "international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947."

The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative recognized by the world community as a whole, acknowledge the recognized this event and the conditions.

External to what if there is no territory?

• The right to independence and sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one argues the "RIGHT" of independence and self-determination. That question was never even up for debate. Everyone acknowledged fact that in 1988, that transpired.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

THIS bares repeating again: "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)," And it is in this acknowledgement we see two things:

• The right of self-determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity;
• We see the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Jewish state as outlined in the Resolution.
​

What does this mean without territory?

• The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

BEFORE you can have territorial integrity, first you must have control of some territory. The "right" to something does not mean you have something. The right to bear arms does not mean you actually have arms. Nor does it mean that if you go to the government and say, you have the right to bear arms, don't expect them to hand you a weapon. The "right" does not means you "have."

What does this mean without territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as in the preceding example; you can have the "right to territorial integrity" and actually NOT have a territory. One does not trump the other.

No smoke.
Just four answers to four simple questions.

(COMMENT)

Yes, 4 simple questions and a reply with for simple answers.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):​

That is not the one I was talking about. The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

(COMMENT)

So you are saying that the 12 December 2012 Resolution is not the most recent, or is somehow inaccurate.

Not to worry.

What is the FALSE Premise. What statement was not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

There doesn't have to be. They are INHERENT rights, remember? That is your argument. The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

What makes you think the Palestinians have no territory? Of course they have territory. They govern Areas A and B and Gaza. Furthermore, Israel clearly has no interest in retaining these territories, as demonstrated by the signing of the Oslo Accords and by the disengagement of Gaza.

The dispute lies in determining the final boundaries and ethnic diversity (or lack) of each territory. That's the end game.

The problem, ideologically, is that you, many others on this forum and internationally and the Arabs (the HoAP) have a different end game. Your end game is that the Jewish people must have no rights, no territory, no sovereignty and no self-determination. Because the Jewish people somehow don't COUNT. I've said this before, no doubt I will say it many more times for as long as I participate on this forum -- that is the fundamental, foundational source of the conflict.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Israel is a different country with no defined territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

What false assumption? That inherent rights apply to ALL peoples and not just to some?

I have never stated otherwise. Those rights belong to the people of the place. They do not belong to people from someplace else.

You haven't been following my posts.

 

[Shusha]

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

 

[Shusha]

The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

What false assumption? That inherent rights apply to ALL peoples and not just to some?

I have never stated otherwise. Those rights belong to the people of the place. They do not belong to people from someplace else.

You haven't been following my posts.

You haven't thought your arguments through to their conclusion.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it is you that are missing the point.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Israel is a different country with no defined territory.

(COMMENT)

In the real world, it is not about who is granted what rights. "Rights" are a human construct. If there is an "inherent" right, intrinsic to one people, it is intrinsic to all; including "Jews."

I think you made a mistake. I did not say the UN "granted" the Palestinians or Israelis any rights. It is you that are pounding the "rights" issue.

But IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for the Palestinians to have an "inherent right" that the Israelis do not have.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, what a invalid answer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you don't read very well.

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):

"Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,"

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
​

So we are specifically addressing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the City of Jerusalem. None of which were under the exclusive control of the Arab Palestinian at the time they were occupied in 1967 by the Israeli. So none of that territory was taken, in any way shape or form, from the Arab Palestinian.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

• The right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The meaning of "Palestine" was the territory formerly under the Mandate (1948). In 1988, without objection or preventative action, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people, was granted observer status after declaring independence.

Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory, The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).
SOURCE: Arab League

You will notice that, unlike the Arab League in 1948, Israel did not attempt to obstruct by military force, the the right of self-determination by the Jewish People to establish the Jewish State of Israel; pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence under the same authority in the Palestinian Declaration: "international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947."

The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative recognized by the world community as a whole, acknowledge the recognized this event and the conditions.

External to what if there is no territory?

• The right to independence and sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one argues the "RIGHT" of independence and self-determination. That question was never even up for debate. Everyone acknowledged fact that in 1988, that transpired.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

THIS bares repeating again: "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)," And it is in this acknowledgement we see two things:

• The right of self-determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity;
• We see the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Jewish state as outlined in the Resolution.
​

What does this mean without territory?

• The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

BEFORE you can have territorial integrity, first you must have control of some territory. The "right" to something does not mean you have something. The right to bear arms does not mean you actually have arms. Nor does it mean that if you go to the government and say, you have the right to bear arms, don't expect them to hand you a weapon. The "right" does not means you "have."

What does this mean without territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as in the preceding example; you can have the "right to territorial integrity" and actually NOT have a territory. One does not trump the other.

No smoke.
Just four answers to four simple questions.

(COMMENT)

Yes, 4 simple questions and a reply with for simple answers.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):​

That is not the one I was talking about. The rest of your post is based on false assumption.

(COMMENT)

So you are saying that the 12 December 2012 Resolution is not the most recent, or is somehow inaccurate.

Not to worry.

What is the FALSE Premise. What statement was not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution in your link is a piece of political theatre. It is based on wishful thinking.

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;​

Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.

They attempt to gain legitimacy by invoking resolution 181 with absolutely zero intention of implementing it, or any of the other resolutions mentioned.

Do you have any idea why they would pass such a useless resolution?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​

I have never said that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, WOW.

The resolution in your link is a piece of political theatre. It is based on wishful thinking.

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;​

Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.

They attempt to gain legitimacy by invoking resolution 181 with absolutely zero intention of implementing it, or any of the other resolutions mentioned.

Do you have any idea why they would pass such a useless resolution?

(COMMENT)

How can anyone tell which UN Resolutions you approve of and which ones are invalid?

Do you put your stamp on them or something?

AND, when the sole representative of the Palestinians People Declare Independence and acknowledge the legitimacy of a Resolution, are we to just accept your word that they really did not mean to say that and declare that?

If one Resolution is invalid, should we consider any of them valid? What makes the UN Resolution you pointed-out earlier any more valid then the ones I pointed out?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, WOW.

The resolution in your link is a piece of political theatre. It is based on wishful thinking.

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;​

Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.

They attempt to gain legitimacy by invoking resolution 181 with absolutely zero intention of implementing it, or any of the other resolutions mentioned.

Do you have any idea why they would pass such a useless resolution?

(COMMENT)

How can anyone tell which UN Resolutions you approve of and which ones are invalid?

Do you put your stamp on them or something?

AND, when the sole representative of the Palestinians People Declare Independence and acknowledge the legitimacy of a Resolution, are we to just accept your word that they really did not mean to say that and declare that?

If one Resolution is invalid, should we consider any of them valid? What makes the UN Resolution you pointed-out earlier any more valid then the ones I pointed out?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good question.

Some resolutions are based on international. Some are not.

The one you linked to is not.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

OH come now.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​

I have never said that.

(COMMENT)

In your Posting #301; you said:

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?

This implies that if the UN did not specify those right for the Israelis, then they don't have them. You went so far as to demand a link as proof.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

OH come now.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​

I have never said that.

(COMMENT)

In your Posting #301; you said:

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?

This implies that if the UN did not specify those right for the Israelis, then they don't have them. You went so far as to demand a link as proof.

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution itself explains this.

Expressing its grave concern​

that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It is the Palestinians who have been denied their rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What in heavens are you talking about?

Good question.

Some resolutions are based on international. Some are not.

The one you linked to is not.

(COMMENT)

Where is this difference outlined and what does "based on international" mean. Is there some kind of annotation?

I've examined Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/67/L.28 and Add.1)] 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations pretty close, and I see no annotation, or missing annotation, that would make it any less valid than any other.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore,

OH come now.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​

I have never said that.

(COMMENT)

In your Posting #301; you said:

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?

This implies that if the UN did not specify those right for the Israelis, then they don't have them. You went so far as to demand a link as proof.

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution itself explains this.

Expressing its grave concern
that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It is the Palestinians who have been denied their rights.

Interesting link you provided.

"Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

Ami Isseroff"

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you made a mistake.

P F Tinmore,

OH come now.

You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​

The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Wow. Yes. That is what I wrote. Inherent rights do not need to be granted. Inherent rights are already existing rights. Do you not understand what "inherent" means? You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted. That is my essential problem with your argument. Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent. You have two different sets of rules.

You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​

I have never said that.

(COMMENT)

In your Posting #301; you said:

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?

This implies that if the UN did not specify those right for the Israelis, then they don't have them. You went so far as to demand a link as proof.

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution itself explains this.

Expressing its grave concern
that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It is the Palestinians who have been denied their rights.

(COMMENT)

The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237 were a 1974 (repeat) 1974 vintage. That is 14 years before the PLO decided to exercise self-determination.

AND, relative to these Resolutions, the West Bank and Jerusalem was still Sovereign Jordanian territory.

If the resolutions were pointing a finger, it was pointing a finger at Jordan.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Official History Site Unification of the Two Banks

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
SOURCE: Office History Site, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What in heavens are you talking about?

Good question.

Some resolutions are based on international. Some are not.

The one you linked to is not.

(COMMENT)

Where is this difference outlined and what does "based on international" mean. Is there some kind of annotation?

I've examined Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/67/L.28 and Add.1)] 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations pretty close, and I see no annotation, or missing annotation, that would make it any less valid than any other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, they list a large number of former resolution then they go off on a tangent. None of those former resolutions will be implemented. If they were they would not need this one.

 

[Shusha]

Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.

While I agree the "1967 borders" have no standing in law other than as they were intended, which is temporary armistice lines, I disagree that the two state solution has no basis. You, yourself, are arguing most vehemently for one such basis in law -- that of the INHERENT right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory.