Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
<<<One thing we know for sure is that all the parties, with some gain to be had, over the Question of Palestine, shape, craft, mold and interpret anything and everything in order to establish some pre-existing claim and invalidate their opponents claim.>>>RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Shusha, José, et al,
Ah yes, those little response buttons are a bit confusing at times.
(COMMENT)RoccoR
Seriously, why did you "thank you" Jose' post?! What am I not understanding about your POV here?
I thanked José because he expressed himself with a constructive manner. I may not always agree with someone, but I appreciate all forthright contributions.
I realize that there is just an inordinate number of ways to view the Question (of Who are Indigenous Peoples?). (There is even a debate on the Question of "People" and Peoples." AND When the issue is expanded to the controversial topic of "People who inhabited a land (1) before it was conquered by colonial societies and who (2) consider themselves distinct from the societies currently governing those territories," then the discussion really jumps the rails. When we look at the Middle East, one has to ask the questions:
◈ How many times were the various territories in the Middle East subject to the political expansionist policies that sought to extend or maintain its control over the existing people, for economic or political gain; as well as commerical opportunities?
◈ Who were the original indigenous populations before the any of the Empires extended control over the territories of the Middle East?
One thing we know for sure is that all the parties, with some gain to be had, over the Question of Palestine, shape, craft, mold and interpret anything and everything in order to establish some pre-existing claim and invalidate their opponents claim. I see that understanding in the comment by José.
We must remember that if the contemporary conflict starting with the establishment of Israel in 1948 continues on until 2948 (a millennium-long war), the1948 Israel will have secured an autonomous Jewish Land for only one third the time that the Ancient Egyptians fought and defended their Empire (3000 BC to 30 BC - the death of Cleopatra VII Philopator). We need to put this struggle and argument into perspective.
Most Respectfully,
R
Originally posted by Sixties Fan
No proofs of anything you said. Just words, and the ones in red are very underwhelming.
Show some proof to the pudding.
Your Larger than life BS has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.Originally posted by Sixties Fan
No proofs of anything you said. Just words, and the ones in red are very underwhelming.
Show some proof to the pudding.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
"The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute."
Sixties Fan claims arabs immigrated in large numbers to Palestine in the last 120 years so Sixties Fan has to prove her allegation not José or Tinmore.
Demanding others to disprove your own statement is known as "inversion of the burden of proof".
The problem is Sixties Fan cannot find any evidence to back up her allegation in any neutral, world renowned encyclopedia like Britannica, Larousse, etc...
All the "evidence" Sixties Fan presents comes either from zionist sources or straight out of her ass.
Palestine had been conquered and occupied many times. However, each conquest was not a new country with a whole new population. It was not a list of different countries. It was merely different periods in Palestine's history. Surely people have come and gone over the centuries. Some stayed and mingled into the original population. However, the Palestinians are an ancient people who go back to the beginning of time.
I thanked José because he expressed himself with a constructive manner. I may not always agree with someone, but I appreciate all forthright contributions.
I realize that there is just an inordinate number of ways to view the Question (of Who are Indigenous Peoples?)
(COMMENT)Where exactly did you get this idea from?One thing we know for sure is that all the parties, with some gain to be had, over the Question of Palestine, shape, craft, mold and interpret anything and everything in order to establish some pre-existing claim and invalidate their opponents claim.
Palestine had been conquered and occupied many times. However, each conquest was not a new country with a whole new population. It was not a list of different countries. It was merely different periods in Palestine's history. Surely people have come and gone over the centuries. Some stayed and mingled into the original population. However, the Palestinians are an ancient people who go back to the beginning of time.
Well, sure. As long as you make the term "Palestinian" a meaningless term not based on the rights of self-determination of any specific cultural peoples. As long as you reduce "Palestinian" to "whoever happens to be living there at the moment". As in, some people have been living there "since the beginning of time", therefore anyone living there now is part of the "ancient people". And any who left (regardless of reason) is no longer part of the "ancient people".
Um. Okay. If you want to ditch the whole concept of self-determination for every cultural peoples, fine by me. You want to give equal weight to everyone who steps onto the soil, fine be me.. You just solved the right of return problem, the "settlements" problem, the Jerusalem problem, and really any problem that exists.
Where is the evidence that the Zionists who now occupy Palestine have any ancestors from the Holy Land?As in, some people have been living there "since the beginning of time", therefore anyone living there now is part of the "ancient people". And any who left (regardless of reason) is no longer part of the "ancient people".
Palestine had been conquered and occupied many times. However, each conquest was not a new country with a whole new population. It was not a list of different countries. It was merely different periods in Palestine's history. Surely people have come and gone over the centuries. Some stayed and mingled into the original population. However, the Palestinians are an ancient people who go back to the beginning of time.
Well, sure. As long as you make the term "Palestinian" a meaningless term not based on the rights of self-determination of any specific cultural peoples. As long as you reduce "Palestinian" to "whoever happens to be living there at the moment". As in, some people have been living there "since the beginning of time", therefore anyone living there now is part of the "ancient people". And any who left (regardless of reason) is no longer part of the "ancient people".
Um. Okay. If you want to ditch the whole concept of self-determination for every cultural peoples, fine by me. You want to give equal weight to everyone who steps onto the soil, fine be me.. You just solved the right of return problem, the "settlements" problem, the Jerusalem problem, and really any problem that exists.Where is the evidence that the Zionists who now occupy Palestine have any ancestors from the Holy Land?As in, some people have been living there "since the beginning of time", therefore anyone living there now is part of the "ancient people". And any who left (regardless of reason) is no longer part of the "ancient people".
Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
(COMMENT)Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,
I believe you to be wrong.
Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
Military might is a defense of the right of a State (to the exclusion of any other States) to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality (supreme power or authority) applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination." "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
See: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
(COMMENT)Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
NOTE: "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality." The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right. It does not mean that any of them equal before the law (domestically or internationally).Your argument has three important components:
✦ First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
✦ Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
✦ The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."
There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law. This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,
I believe you to be wrong.
Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
Military might is a defense of the right of a State (to the exclusion of any other States) to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality (supreme power or authority) applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination." "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
See: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
(COMMENT)Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
NOTE: "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality." The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right. It does not mean that any of them equal before the law (domestically or internationally).Your argument has three important components:
✦ First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
✦ Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
✦ The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."
There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law. This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
RIn 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
That was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
WRONG thread.RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,
I believe you to be wrong.
Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
Military might is a defense of the right of a State (to the exclusion of any other States) to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality (supreme power or authority) applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination." "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
See: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
(COMMENT)Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
NOTE: "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality." The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right. It does not mean that any of them equal before the law (domestically or internationally).Your argument has three important components:
✦ First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
✦ Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
✦ The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."
There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law. This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
RIn 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
OK.WRONG thread.RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,
I believe you to be wrong.
Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
Military might is a defense of the right of a State (to the exclusion of any other States) to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality (supreme power or authority) applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination." "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
See: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
(COMMENT)Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
NOTE: "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality." The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right. It does not mean that any of them equal before the law (domestically or internationally).Your argument has three important components:
✦ First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
✦ Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
✦ The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."
There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law. This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
RIn 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
Please transfer the Mandate discussion to the other thread.
Thank you !
Where is the evidence that the Zionists who now occupy Palestine have any ancestors from the Holy Land?
The point is that "returning" to a land where you had no ancestors in ludicrous.Where is the evidence that the Zionists who now occupy Palestine have any ancestors from the Holy Land?
This is only a little twist on the whole DNA argument, merely substituting "ancestors" for "genetics". You're asking the wrong question, I suspect deliberately.
The requirements for indigeneity are: group of people with a distinct culture, who originated on and have historical ties to a specific territory, pre-invasion, pre-colonization. The test whether a specific individual belongs to the group is self-identification and acceptance.
There is nothing about ancestors or ancestry. How would you even measure that, anyway? How far back would those ancestors have to go to be valid? One generation? Five? A hundred? What happens to the people who don't have the right "ancestry"? And if we apply this to the Jewish people, shouldn't we also apply this to the Arab Palestinians? What objective "ancestry" criteria are you suggesting?
Which is exactly what the Arabs are. Ludicrous.The point is that "returning" to a land where you had no ancestors in ludicrous.Where is the evidence that the Zionists who now occupy Palestine have any ancestors from the Holy Land?
This is only a little twist on the whole DNA argument, merely substituting "ancestors" for "genetics". You're asking the wrong question, I suspect deliberately.
The requirements for indigeneity are: group of people with a distinct culture, who originated on and have historical ties to a specific territory, pre-invasion, pre-colonization. The test whether a specific individual belongs to the group is self-identification and acceptance.
There is nothing about ancestors or ancestry. How would you even measure that, anyway? How far back would those ancestors have to go to be valid? One generation? Five? A hundred? What happens to the people who don't have the right "ancestry"? And if we apply this to the Jewish people, shouldn't we also apply this to the Arab Palestinians? What objective "ancestry" criteria are you suggesting?
