The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria. Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians. Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny. That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else. In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in Article 1, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.

I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco. How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"? Self-identification? Cultural parameters? Ethnicity? Residency? Political affiliation?

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification. I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians. They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories. (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.) It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

BLUF: The identification of any ethnic or cultural group - any political jurisdiction or nationality - or - any territorial association ONLY is of importance IF (and only IF) it becomes important to the populations in question.

I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco. How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"? Self-identification? Cultural parameters? Ethnicity? Residency? Political affiliation?

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel annexation of "Judea" and "Samaria," you have to look at it from the perspective of the Israeli, and from the perspective of the Arab Palestinian.

◈ In one direction, the Israelis only care about the control and justification of the action relative to the territorial question.​

​

◈ In the opposite direction, the identification of the Judean, of the Samarian, or of the Palestinians is only important to the Arab Palestinian if they object to the annexation and how they perceive themselves on the issue.​

From the very beginning, the difference has been "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" [Faisal - Weizmann Agreement - (3 January 1919)]. In the beginning, that was all the distinction that needed to be made. But like many of the discussions today, there are all kinds of distinction being made. As far as some are concerned, the only real question that is of concern is: Do the people that live within the territory under consideration for annexation have a meaningful objection? (RHETORICAL)

◈ The nomenclature associated with the territory under consideration is unimportant, as long as all the parties concerned are speaking to the same territory.​

​

◈ The nomenclature associated with the two parties concerned is unimportant, as long as each knows the other.​

There is a third concern, and that is the concern the greater populations (the Arab Population as a whole) have:

◈ Relative to the transfer of territorial integrity.​

​

◈ Relative to the transfer of the constituency.​

(Ω∑) Again, the questions of: Self-identification, Cultural parameters, Ethnicity, Residency, Political affiliation, etc are only important from a given perspective. What the Israelis see as critical issues/objectives and what the Arab Palestinians see as critical issues/objectives are very different.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

BLUF: The identification of any ethnic or cultural group - any political jurisdiction or nationality - or - any territorial association ONLY is of importance IF (and only IF) it becomes important to the populations in question.

I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco. How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"? Self-identification? Cultural parameters? Ethnicity? Residency? Political affiliation?

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel annexation of "Judea" and "Samaria," you have to look at it from the perspective of the Israeli, and from the perspective of the Arab Palestinian.

◈ In one direction, the Israelis only care about the control and justification of the action relative to the territorial question.​

​

◈ In the opposite direction, the identification of the Judean, of the Samarian, or of the Palestinians is only important to the Arab Palestinian if they object to the annexation and how they perceive themselves on the issue.​

From the very beginning, the difference has been "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" [Faisal - Weizmann Agreement - (3 January 1919)]. In the beginning, that was all the distinction that needed to be made. But like many of the discussions today, there are all kinds of distinction being made. As far as some are concerned, the only real question that is of concern is: Do the people that live within the territory under consideration for annexation have a meaningful objection? (RHETORICAL)

◈ The nomenclature associated with the territory under consideration is unimportant, as long as all the parties concerned are speaking to the same territory.​

​

◈ The nomenclature associated with the two parties concerned is unimportant, as long as each knows the other.​

There is a third concern, and that is the concern the greater populations (the Arab Population as a whole) have:

◈ Relative to the transfer of territorial integrity.​

​

◈ Relative to the transfer of the constituency.​

(Ω∑) Again, the questions of: Self-identification, Cultural parameters, Ethnicity, Residency, Political affiliation, etc are only important from a given perspective. What the Israelis see as critical issues/objectives and what the Arab Palestinians see as critical issues/objectives are very different.


Most Respectfully,
R

Resolution, First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (Jerusalem, 1919), Paris Peace Conference: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International

(*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.

Why do they always use the term peoples?

(COMMENT)

“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.​

The people of Chinano longer need to abide by the one-child policy.

​

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.​

“We here highly resolve that government of the people, for the people, and by the people will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.

The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.

Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International

(*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.

Why do they always use the term peoples?

(COMMENT)

“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.​

The people of Chinano longer need to abide by the one-child policy.

​

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.​

“We here highly resolve that government of the people, for the people, and by the people will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.

The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.

Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

Palestine was a European Christian term, from the Roman name Palaestina imposed on Jews. Britain adopted it as the name for the British Mandate where Jews were called palestinians. Arabs rejected these names as Western inventions. They viewed the country in its entirety as Syria. For Arabs, there was no place palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This was already addressed in Posting #736. The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

(COMMENT)

Your analogy is wrong. If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination. The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory. In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.

(CONTEXT)

The context of the citation for which you were addressing (my Posting #739), did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) from you Posting #737.. My response was taken verbatim from The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules.

So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This was already addressed in Posting #736. The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

(COMMENT)

Your analogy is wrong. If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination. The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory. In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.

(CONTEXT)

The context of the citation for which you were addressing (my Posting #739), did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) from you Posting #737.. My response was taken verbatim from The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules.

So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.

Most Respectfully,
R

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?

If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.

 

[Shusha]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International

(*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.

Why do they always use the term peoples?

(COMMENT)

“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.​

The people of Chinano longer need to abide by the one-child policy.

​

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.​

“We here highly resolve that government of the people, for the people, and by the people will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.

The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.

Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

Where are the Jewish people from? What is their place?

 

[Shusha]

...They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

Canada has many different peoples. Each of those peoples has a right to self-determination, do they not?

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This was already addressed in Posting #736. The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

(COMMENT)

Your analogy is wrong. If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination. The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory. In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.

(CONTEXT)

The context of the citation for which you were addressing (my Posting #739), did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) from you Posting #737.. My response was taken verbatim from The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules.

So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.

Most Respectfully,
R

There never was a country named palestine created by a people named palestinians.

 

[rylah]

This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria. Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians. Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny. That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else. In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in Article 1, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.

I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco. How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"? Self-identification? Cultural parameters? Ethnicity? Residency? Political affiliation?

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification. I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians. They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories. (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.) It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?

Shuli Rand actually made a series around this plot.
The scenario is possible, but it's an extreme one.

 

[rylah]

This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria. Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians. Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny. That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else. In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in Article 1, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.

I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco. How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"? Self-identification? Cultural parameters? Ethnicity? Residency? Political affiliation?

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification. I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians. They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories. (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.) It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?

Shuli Rand actually made a series around this plot.
The scenario is possible, but it's an extreme one.

Shusha You're right.

Folks just want Israeli sovereignty,
and all these crazy scenarios are made to push it forward.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International

(*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.

Why do they always use the term peoples?

(COMMENT)

“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.​

The people of Chinano longer need to abide by the one-child policy.

​

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.​

“We here highly resolve that government of the people, for the people, and by the people will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.

The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Emmanuel Macron was elected by the people of France on May 7, 2017.

Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.

Only Canada, Mexico, Britain and France are actual states.

What is common between these parliamentary monarchies and a republic,
and that envisioned Arab nation state that never existed?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights (as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in Paragraph 2 of the Mandate) which have the force of law - with "Human Rights" [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law] that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.

(COMMENT)

If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it. You can believe what you will. BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination. It is not limited to Arab Palestinians. And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.

Where are the Jewish people from? What is their place?

(COMMENT)

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

To be included in the definition of Jewish people → they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond (but not limited to), a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew. However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights (as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in Paragraph 2 of the Mandate) which have the force of law - with "Human Rights" [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law] that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.

(COMMENT)

If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it. You can believe what you will. BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination. It is not limited to Arab Palestinians. And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.

Where are the Jewish people from? What is their place?

(COMMENT)

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

To be included in the definition of Jewish people → they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond (but not limited to), a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew. However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.


Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

(COMMENT)

I think you might be confused. What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:

◈ Palestine was NOT a "negotiating State” which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​

​

◈ Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights (as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in Paragraph 2 of the Mandate) which have the force of law - with "Human Rights" [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law] that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.

(COMMENT)

If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it. You can believe what you will. BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination. It is not limited to Arab Palestinians. And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.

Where are the Jewish people from? What is their place?

(COMMENT)

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

To be included in the definition of Jewish people → they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond (but not limited to), a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew. However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.


Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

Arab commentator acknowledges: “When the State of Israel was established in 1948, there was no state called ‘palestine’”

Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights (as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in Paragraph 2 of the Mandate) which have the force of law - with "Human Rights" [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law] that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.

(COMMENT)

If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it. You can believe what you will. BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination. It is not limited to Arab Palestinians. And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.

Where are the Jewish people from? What is their place?

(COMMENT)

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

To be included in the definition of Jewish people → they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond (but not limited to), a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew. However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.


Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

As renowned Middle East historian Bernard Lewis notes, palestine is a fictional European Christian name for Jews‘ homeland, which became Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that was terminated in 1948 with Israeli statehood. There never was a place palestine founded by any Middle Eastern people...

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

(COMMENT)

I think you might be confused. What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:

◈ Palestine was NOT a "negotiating State” which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​

​

◈ Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.

For starters, a "state" is not relevant.

Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights. But that really isn't true (→ is it)?

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence. But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal. [Article 2(1)(e) • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)]

There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.

(COMMENT)

I think you might be confused. What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:

◈ Palestine was NOT a "negotiating State” which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​

​

◈ Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.

For starters, a "state" is not relevant.

Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?

As eminent Middle East historian Franck Salameh notes, the name palestinian was a made-up European name that applied to Jews...