P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
Indeed, but Israeli propagandists always pound on the Palestinian land ownership thing.
No 'Deals' With Israel, Unless We Get Everything We Want
- Thread starter Sweet_Caroline
- Start date
Indeed, but Israeli propagandists always pound on the Palestinian land ownership thing.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
That is true. Residence is the key. Land ownership is irrelevant.
When Palestine was carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire and its international borders were defined, the people whose normal residence was inside that defined area became Palestinians.
They are the ones who have the right to self determination without external interference. This includes the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
It used to be about two thousand Palestinians a year legally enter Israel through family unification, medical need, education and authentic deed/court judgements. The Medical and Education entry did not require citizenship but they could apply. Palestinians got citizenship through Land and Family programs.
After Oslo the numbers fell from a few hundred to a thousand a year.
After the intifada I think most of the programs were terminated, or at least suspended.
After Oslo the numbers fell from a few hundred to a thousand a year.
After the intifada I think most of the programs were terminated, or at least suspended.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, aris2chat, et al,
OK, we all agree that the "land ownership" issue is irrelevant. And probably a good thing. The Treaty of Lausanne, which effectively replaced the Treaty of Sevres, stupulated that:
NOW, for the second piece:
There is a difference between having a "right of self-determination" and the effective use of that "right of self-determination."
When the Ottoman/Turks renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title which Ottoman/Turks could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe, --- whatever else may be true, those rights which the Ottoman/Turks renounced, went to the Allied Powers --- and NOT the --- indigenous population (with only a very specific few exceptions --- the recognition of the Hedjaz as a free and independent State being a notable one such example exception); true under either Treaty (Article 132 of Sevres Treaty or Article 16 of Lausanne Treaty). The rights pertaining to self-determination were codified by the Allied Powers and League of Nations. By Treaty (a form of binding international law) and by convention, the authority of the former sovereign power (Ottoman/Turks) transferred.
(COMMENT)
While the term "self-determination" has been used over the last century, like other political terms, it has not been well defined. It has recently been determined that the Universal recognition of the inalienable right to self-determination was the most effective way the global community could guarantee protection of fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today, as it concluded discussion on several human rights issues.
It was a quarter century after the 1967 Occupation by Israel that "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" was established in 1994; and the universal meaning has been a topic of discussion ever since. Most recently, the UN Third Committee on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural (GA/SHC/4085 5 November, 2013) concluded that "the right to self-determination was an integral element of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its general discussion on that subject, and on the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." And while we often hear in the discussion, the concept that the "right of self-determination" has been denied the Palestinian for all these many decades, the fact is, the argument is based on the idea that the "right of self-determination" was some sort of well established concept for all this time. It was not. It is not today, and it is not likely that it will be in the future; but most especially NOT in the Islamic world, or the small Arab world world.
Oddly enough, the current Jordanian Government supports the Palestinian right to "self-determination." Yet, HM Hashemite Government was not formed on this basis. Nor were any of the original Middle East or Persian Gulf States.
In 1967, when Israel pursued hostile forces through the West Bank and Gaza Strip, nearly all (but not all: most notably Iceland, Norway, Antigua and Barbuda) of the countries that today, speak out against the "Occupation," were not countries in which the indigenous population was allowed to exercise the "right of self-determination."
Trying to apply modern concepts retroactively to a situation this old, is not always a good solution. Even today, most of the regional governments were not then and are not now, democratic (with the people establishing the direction of their own destiny).
Most Respectfully,
R
OK, we all agree that the "land ownership" issue is irrelevant. And probably a good thing. The Treaty of Lausanne, which effectively replaced the Treaty of Sevres, stupulated that:
Excerpt from Part III: Articles 65 said:
NOW, for the second piece:
(OBSERVATIONS)
There is a difference between having a "right of self-determination" and the effective use of that "right of self-determination."
When the Ottoman/Turks renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title which Ottoman/Turks could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe, --- whatever else may be true, those rights which the Ottoman/Turks renounced, went to the Allied Powers --- and NOT the --- indigenous population (with only a very specific few exceptions --- the recognition of the Hedjaz as a free and independent State being a notable one such example exception); true under either Treaty (Article 132 of Sevres Treaty or Article 16 of Lausanne Treaty). The rights pertaining to self-determination were codified by the Allied Powers and League of Nations. By Treaty (a form of binding international law) and by convention, the authority of the former sovereign power (Ottoman/Turks) transferred.
(COMMENT)
While the term "self-determination" has been used over the last century, like other political terms, it has not been well defined. It has recently been determined that the Universal recognition of the inalienable right to self-determination was the most effective way the global community could guarantee protection of fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today, as it concluded discussion on several human rights issues.
It was a quarter century after the 1967 Occupation by Israel that "Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" was established in 1994; and the universal meaning has been a topic of discussion ever since. Most recently, the UN Third Committee on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural (GA/SHC/4085 5 November, 2013) concluded that "the right to self-determination was an integral element of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its general discussion on that subject, and on the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." And while we often hear in the discussion, the concept that the "right of self-determination" has been denied the Palestinian for all these many decades, the fact is, the argument is based on the idea that the "right of self-determination" was some sort of well established concept for all this time. It was not. It is not today, and it is not likely that it will be in the future; but most especially NOT in the Islamic world, or the small Arab world world.
Oddly enough, the current Jordanian Government supports the Palestinian right to "self-determination." Yet, HM Hashemite Government was not formed on this basis. Nor were any of the original Middle East or Persian Gulf States.
- Bolivia (known for its history of dictatorships and junta's), in 1967 was ruled by President René Barrientos Ortuño, a former member of the junta.
- In 1967, China was ruled by Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai.
- In 1969 Libya had a military coup, and was ruled by Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi.
- In 1967 Malaysia was deeply involved in the racial riots and a Communist insurgency, a struggle with the "indigenous people", ruled by Prime Minister Abdul Razak.
- Senegal was ruled by a hard core Socialist Party for 40 years until 2000.
In 1967, when Israel pursued hostile forces through the West Bank and Gaza Strip, nearly all (but not all: most notably Iceland, Norway, Antigua and Barbuda) of the countries that today, speak out against the "Occupation," were not countries in which the indigenous population was allowed to exercise the "right of self-determination."
Trying to apply modern concepts retroactively to a situation this old, is not always a good solution. Even today, most of the regional governments were not then and are not now, democratic (with the people establishing the direction of their own destiny).
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
Good attempt to diminish the importence and scope of the right to self determination.
Self determination is not a new concept. its principles were mentioned in the League of Nations Covenant and some of the treaties of that time. It was a part of the UN Charter. It was well established by the time that Palestine declared independence in 1948.
Since its inception, Palestine has been denied this basic right by foreign powers. The violation of rights do not negate those rights. They merely postpone the exercise of those rights.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, aris2chat, et al,
Well, we will have to disagree.
There was no attempt in the previous post to diminish any idea concerning the "right of self-determination." But their is a distinct objection to the implication that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is the perpetual victim when, they had the opportunity to achieve peace and economic security and decisively acted on the instigation of over 6 decades of conflict.
There are many bones we can pick with the Israel. The HoAP choices are very poor; very poor in deed; when peaceful options were availed.
The "right of self-determination" has been used as a phrase, but not truly defined. And as you cite above, the groundwork is post-1948 and barely evolving in the 1960's. It is not even mentioned in the 70 Articles of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The phrase is not used once in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The phrase is used twice in the UN Charter:
Notice that it does not make a direct connection with the establishment of sovereignty.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) did not enter into force until 1976, a decade after the Occupation.
Yet, it is not defined. It doesn't answer the question: What is the "right to self-determination" and clearly does not say it is applicable to Occupied Territories. It says "Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories." Since this limited description was only established in 1976 (a quarter century after the Partition Plan and a decade after the 1967 War), it cannot be applied retroactively to a situation.
However, everyone - including the State of Israel, has encourage the establishment of a negotiated Peace Settlement with the Palestinians. It is the Palestinians that have declined.
Additionally, most of what we discuss as "international law" and "customary law" has only been defined either in the last decade of the 20th Century, or the 21st Century. It was clearly not the prevailing opinion immediately after WWII, or through the 1980's.
It is not part of the Covenant, but, as I said before, it is used in the Charter --- although undefined. It clearly wasn't applied to political developments.
Just as the Ottoman, that held sovereignty over the territory for 8 Centuries was not truly a foreigner, so it is that neither were the Principle Allied Powers, which assumed those rights from the Ottoman/Turks. But even if they were, foreign under this concept, the rights of the indigenous population are no greater than those rights surrendered to the Allied Powers.
There is nothing in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) that says they have the right to armed struggle, jihad, insurrection and insurgency. The indigenous have the "right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions." (Article 4)
NOW, in the 46 Articles from the DRIP (13 September 2007, created 40 years after the 1967 Occupation) is a clause that covers every single complaint the Hostile Arab Palestinians have ever made. It is the very first time (only 6 years ago) that the scope and nature of the rights were defined.
But this DRIP would not have been necessary if these rights had been spelled-out already. The purpose of the DRIP was to bring together all the disjointed concepts under one heading; a clear and concise document. However, it must be said, that it doesn't give the Palestinian the right to use "any and all means" to achieve through asymmetric measures what they couldn't achieve through their first option (war and terrorism) and other non-peaceful means.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, we will have to disagree.
There was no attempt in the previous post to diminish any idea concerning the "right of self-determination." But their is a distinct objection to the implication that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is the perpetual victim when, they had the opportunity to achieve peace and economic security and decisively acted on the instigation of over 6 decades of conflict.
There are many bones we can pick with the Israel. The HoAP choices are very poor; very poor in deed; when peaceful options were availed.
(COMMENT)
The "right of self-determination" has been used as a phrase, but not truly defined. And as you cite above, the groundwork is post-1948 and barely evolving in the 1960's. It is not even mentioned in the 70 Articles of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The phrase is not used once in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The phrase is used twice in the UN Charter:
- Article 1: "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;"
- Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
- a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
- b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
- c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Notice that it does not make a direct connection with the establishment of sovereignty.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) did not enter into force until 1976, a decade after the Occupation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said:
Yet, it is not defined. It doesn't answer the question: What is the "right to self-determination" and clearly does not say it is applicable to Occupied Territories. It says "Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories." Since this limited description was only established in 1976 (a quarter century after the Partition Plan and a decade after the 1967 War), it cannot be applied retroactively to a situation.
However, everyone - including the State of Israel, has encourage the establishment of a negotiated Peace Settlement with the Palestinians. It is the Palestinians that have declined.
Additionally, most of what we discuss as "international law" and "customary law" has only been defined either in the last decade of the 20th Century, or the 21st Century. It was clearly not the prevailing opinion immediately after WWII, or through the 1980's.
- Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994
- Right of Peoples to Self-determination (1995/5) A/50/485 28 September 1995
- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples A/61/295 13 September 2007
- The right to self-determination was an integral element of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms GA/SHC/4085 5 November 2013
(COMMENT)
It is not part of the Covenant, but, as I said before, it is used in the Charter --- although undefined. It clearly wasn't applied to political developments.
(COMMENT)
Just as the Ottoman, that held sovereignty over the territory for 8 Centuries was not truly a foreigner, so it is that neither were the Principle Allied Powers, which assumed those rights from the Ottoman/Turks. But even if they were, foreign under this concept, the rights of the indigenous population are no greater than those rights surrendered to the Allied Powers.
There is nothing in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) that says they have the right to armed struggle, jihad, insurrection and insurgency. The indigenous have the "right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions." (Article 4)
NOW, in the 46 Articles from the DRIP (13 September 2007, created 40 years after the 1967 Occupation) is a clause that covers every single complaint the Hostile Arab Palestinians have ever made. It is the very first time (only 6 years ago) that the scope and nature of the rights were defined.
But this DRIP would not have been necessary if these rights had been spelled-out already. The purpose of the DRIP was to bring together all the disjointed concepts under one heading; a clear and concise document. However, it must be said, that it doesn't give the Palestinian the right to use "any and all means" to achieve through asymmetric measures what they couldn't achieve through their first option (war and terrorism) and other non-peaceful means.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
RoccoR said:
What peaceful options were available?
When were all of the Palestinians offered peace and economic security?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
The concept of a Peaceful Existence does not require reciprocation. All that is required is the cessation of hostilities.
In addition to the:
One can go back to the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), in which Plan of Partition was not accepted by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Arab States on the grounds that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.
The Hostile Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; in direct defiance of the UN and the General Assembly; threatening to use of external interference in the form of Arab Armies to deny the Jewish citizens the right to decide their own destiny; and follow the recommendations of the UN General Assembly. The Hostile Arab Palestinian's solemn declaration included the language:
For Hostile Arab Palestinian that believes the only solution is in Jihad, their logic would naturally conclude their was no option.
Most Respectfully,
R
The concept of a Peaceful Existence does not require reciprocation. All that is required is the cessation of hostilities.
(COMMENT)
In addition to the:
- 1949 Lausanne Conference 27 April to 12 September 1949
- 1978 Camp David Accords 17 September 1978
- 1991 Madrid Conference October 30, 1991
- 1993 Oslo I / 1995 Oslo II
- 1997 Hebron Protocol 15 to 17 January, 1997
- 1998 Wye River Memorandum 15-23 October 1998
- 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh September 4, 1999
- 2000 Camp David 11 and 25 July 2000
- 2000 Clinton Parameters 19 to 23 December 2000
- 2001 Taba 27 January 2001
- 2003 Road Map 30 April 2003
- 2007 Annapolis 27 November 2007
One can go back to the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), in which Plan of Partition was not accepted by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Arab States on the grounds that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.
The Hostile Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; in direct defiance of the UN and the General Assembly; threatening to use of external interference in the form of Arab Armies to deny the Jewish citizens the right to decide their own destiny; and follow the recommendations of the UN General Assembly. The Hostile Arab Palestinian's solemn declaration included the language:
- “The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child." (The Hostile Arab Palestinian promotion of genocide.)
For Hostile Arab Palestinian that believes the only solution is in Jihad, their logic would naturally conclude their was no option.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
But the ones who were driven off their land by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun, did have a claim.
Bullshit! Once the farm ownership came into jewish hands, only jewish laborers could be used on it. That's one of the apartheid rules Zionists brought with them into Palestine.
So what. That's not the issue here.
If they lived on that land for generations it sure did.
Here's the official land records and what they don't support, is your argument.
If someone gets bummed after they sell their property, tough shit.
But the issue is the over 700,000 arabs that were driven from their land without selling.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
>>Bullshit! Once the farm ownership came into jewish hands, only jewish laborers could be used on it. That's one of the apartheid rules Zionists brought with them into Palestine.<<
Since the 1800's Jewish farms on average had 50 percent of labor done by paid arab workers.
Under Ottomans most farm labor was done by feudal, indenture or share cropping.
You didn't bother to check so use that word on yourself.
Since the 1800's Jewish farms on average had 50 percent of labor done by paid arab workers.
Under Ottomans most farm labor was done by feudal, indenture or share cropping.
You didn't bother to check so use that word on yourself.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
You didn't understand my question.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
That all changed when Zionists migrated into the area.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
Round 13000 palestinions from the PA have work visas to work farms
Ministry said that hiring PA Arabs in agriculture was a positive move
Arabs are hired to work in construction, even in settlements.
Ministry said that hiring PA Arabs in agriculture was a positive move
Arabs are hired to work in construction, even in settlements.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
That is the plan.
For example, Israel will bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then pretend they are doing the Palestinians a favor by giving them jobs in Israeli greenhouses.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the period of the Zionist migration into Palestine.
It doesn't get more racist and apartheid than that.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
So much for Israel's lie that the Arabs flooded into Palestine to get jobs provided by the Jews.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
What nonsense is this?
This is neither "racist" and "apartheid!" This is the same as a "closed shop" policy in the US.
The employment for Jewish Immigrants (like a union member) only is an economic policy. It is a place of work in which the employer has agreed to employ only members of the Jewish Immigrants society (as particular labor union) in order to contain the impact of immigrant unemployment, so as to limit the burden of the unemployed on the community. It is helpful in attaining self-sufficiency in the immigrant population; while not taking employment opportunities in the indigenous labor market.
The claim of "racist" and "apartheid" in such a policy is merely the cry of an uneducated segment of the population that has no clear understanding of the mechanisms in play; and sometimes, the open attempt to make such an appeal to inflame the emotion on the topic of race.
Oddly enough, many countries have such a controlled employment policy concerning work restrictions - and citizenship/immigration status; not just the US and Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
What nonsense is this?
(COMMENT)
This is neither "racist" and "apartheid!" This is the same as a "closed shop" policy in the US.
The employment for Jewish Immigrants (like a union member) only is an economic policy. It is a place of work in which the employer has agreed to employ only members of the Jewish Immigrants society (as particular labor union) in order to contain the impact of immigrant unemployment, so as to limit the burden of the unemployed on the community. It is helpful in attaining self-sufficiency in the immigrant population; while not taking employment opportunities in the indigenous labor market.
The claim of "racist" and "apartheid" in such a policy is merely the cry of an uneducated segment of the population that has no clear understanding of the mechanisms in play; and sometimes, the open attempt to make such an appeal to inflame the emotion on the topic of race.
Oddly enough, many countries have such a controlled employment policy concerning work restrictions - and citizenship/immigration status; not just the US and Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
That's about as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
It's apartheid and racist in Palestine and illegal in the US (violation of the Civil Rights Act).
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Yeah, that lie is pretty much bullshit.
Why would they "flood" into Palestine to get jobs that weren't being offered?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
BREAKING: Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect, new court filing says- Started by munkle
- Replies: 3
-
-
Trump posts video of a large explosion in U.S/Israeli mission- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 8
