UN calls on Israel to lift Gaza blockade

[georgephillip]

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

It isn't rational to think about the conflict between Jew and Arab in Palestine as a contest between equals since Israel commands an overwhelming monopoly of violence. I find it likely both sides lie to their children; however, it's the young Jews in the IDF that have had much greater power to affect the facts on the ground in Palestine over the past 65 years.

What's your rational choice for Greater Israel's eastern border?
I'm guessing most young Jews would answer the Jordan River.

In 1994, Israel established a peace treaty with Jordan, that established Israel eastern "internationally recognized borders"

If that border is the Jordan river, Israel is facing a choice between a democratic or apartheid state; maybe radical solutions will be required?

"With reports that peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are faltering, figures from the fringes are jockeying to fill the vacuum they believe will result."

Basically, Area C would be annexed into Greater Israel. and a limited right of return would be granted to Palestinians with roots inside the Green Line.

Utopian Thinkers Plan for Future One-State Israel Solution ? If It Comes ? Forward.com

 

[docmauser1]

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

How does that help mexicans to vote in the US?

Bilingual ballots, of course.

Do all mexicans living between the US and the Panama canal get bilingual ballots to vote in the US?

 

[georgephillip]

How does that help mexicans to vote in the US?

Bilingual ballots, of course.

Do all mexicans living between the US and the Panama canal get bilingual ballots to vote in the US?

Of course not.
They get Mamluk ballots.

"Near the end of the 13th century, the Mamluk dynasty in Egypt overwhelmed the coastal, Christian stronghold of Acre and drove the European invaders out of Palestine and Syria. Still throughout the 13th century, Crusaders tried to gain ground in the Holy Land through short-lived raids that proved little more than annoyances to Muslim rulers.

"But that wasn’t the end of it. In 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt and Syria. In 1882, Britain made Egypt into a protectorate (which is a fancy name for ‘colony.’) In 1919, France again went to war with Syria.

"In the 1920s, the League of Nations granted Britain and France permission to make Syria a French protectorate and Palestine a British protectorate. Now the West has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, regularly bombs Pakistan, and seems intent on a war with Iran.

"For more than ten centuries, the Middle East has suffered under the assaults of Western Europeans! None of the West’s efforts has gotten it the hegemony it seeks.

"So at the end of the Second World War, the British realized, as the system of protectorates in the Middle East began to unravel, that a different strategy was needed. Not having been able to transplant Western values in the populations of any Middle Eastern country, it became apparent that only another British colony, populated by people of European origin, could ever hope to succeed.

"Thus the British continued the duplicitous diplomacy of making promises it never intended to keep, concocted a racist Balfour Declaration, and sought to use the Jews of Europe as its colonists to establish a Western style state in Palestine called Israel."

Israel ? Just Another Hapless British Colony | Global Research

Where do you vote?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I don't believe I implied that at all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) comes in three parts; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Bill of Human Rights.

The ICCPR is a key international human rights treaty, a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, and in force since 23 March 1976; coving such issues as the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.

Rocco...are you implying that only Americans are beneficiaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Two points:

FIRST:

• Not all countries have ratified the ICCPR which contains the fundamentals. Most notably, the following countries have taken "no action" to join the treaty:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bhutan
• Brunei Darussalam
• Cook Islands
• Fiji
• Holy See
• Kiribati
• Malaysia
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• Myanmar
• Niue
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saudi Arabia
• Singapore
• Solomon Islands
• South Sudan
• Tonga
• Tuvalu
• United Arab Emirates

While there are a few number of countries that are a Signatory but not yet Party to the treaty:

• China
• Comoros
• Cuba
• Nauru
• Palau
• Saint Lucia
• Sao Tome and Principe

Data: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/DataICCPR.xls
Source: Database of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), January 31, 2013 United Nations - Office of Legal Affairs
​

SECOND:

I believe that we have a misunderstanding between what an "UNalienable rights" is, versus and "INalienable right." And it is a big difference. There is this naive and utopian notion that all human rights are universal, indivisible and related; with all nations treating human rights in a global fashion like computer code, in a fair and equal manner.

Unalienable Rights: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.​

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.​

It is the "INalienable right" (of which you speak) that can be surrendered by merely accepting accepting a certain form of government.

However, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "UNalienable Rights" in the US. So, in answer to your question, no - the distinction is made by others.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

Bilingual ballots, of course.

Do all mexicans living between the US and the Panama canal get bilingual ballots to vote in the US?

Of course not. They get Mamluk ballots.

Are americans afraid of democracy and in favor of apartheid that mexicans are denied the right to vote in the US?

 

[Kondor3]

Do all mexicans living between the US and the Panama canal get bilingual ballots to vote in the US?

Of course not. They get Mamluk ballots.

Are americans afraid of democracy and in favor of apartheid that mexicans are denied the right to vote in the US?

 

[georgephillip]

Do all mexicans living between the US and the Panama canal get bilingual ballots to vote in the US?

Of course not. They get Mamluk ballots.

Are americans afraid of democracy and in favor of apartheid that mexicans are denied the right to vote in the US?

No more so than Israel denying Moldavians, Russians, and Poles the right to vote in Israel.
Where do you cast your ballot, Drivel?

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

I don't believe I implied that at all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) comes in three parts; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Bill of Human Rights.

The ICCPR is a key international human rights treaty, a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, and in force since 23 March 1976; coving such issues as the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.

Rocco...are you implying that only Americans are beneficiaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Two points:

FIRST:

• Not all countries have ratified the ICCPR which contains the fundamentals. Most notably, the following countries have taken "no action" to join the treaty:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bhutan
• Brunei Darussalam
• Cook Islands
• Fiji
• Holy See
• Kiribati
• Malaysia
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• Myanmar
• Niue
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saudi Arabia
• Singapore
• Solomon Islands
• South Sudan
• Tonga
• Tuvalu
• United Arab Emirates

While there are a few number of countries that are a Signatory but not yet Party to the treaty:

• China
• Comoros
• Cuba
• Nauru
• Palau
• Saint Lucia
• Sao Tome and Principe

Data: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/DataICCPR.xls
Source: Database of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), January 31, 2013 United Nations - Office of Legal Affairs
​

SECOND:

I believe that we have a misunderstanding between what an "UNalienable rights" is, versus and "INalienable right." And it is a big difference. There is this naive and utopian notion that all human rights are universal, indivisible and related; with all nations treating human rights in a global fashion like computer code, in a fair and equal manner.

Unalienable Rights: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.​

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.​

It is the "INalienable right" (of which you speak) that can be surrendered by merely accepting accepting a certain form of government.

However, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "UNalienable Rights" in the US. So, in answer to your question, no - the distinction is made by others.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The question is often asked, 'Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?'

"The final version of the Declaration uses the word 'unalienable.' Some earlier drafts used the word 'inalienable,' which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer.

"The two words mean precisely the same thing.

"According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing.

"Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used..."

Unalienable / Inalienable

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, you can believe what you want.

"The question is often asked, 'Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?'

"The final version of the Declaration uses the word 'unalienable.' Some earlier drafts used the word 'inalienable,' which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer.

"The two words mean precisely the same thing.

"According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing.

"Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used..."

Unalienable / Inalienable

(COMMENT)

But common sense tells you that you do not have any right that the government cannot alter or change in status.

There is no such thing as an absolute right of the people in the real world; but, most especially in an Arab Country.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

I don't believe I implied that at all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) comes in three parts; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Bill of Human Rights.

The ICCPR is a key international human rights treaty, a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, and in force since 23 March 1976; coving such issues as the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.

Rocco...are you implying that only Americans are beneficiaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Two points:

FIRST:

• Not all countries have ratified the ICCPR which contains the fundamentals. Most notably, the following countries have taken "no action" to join the treaty:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bhutan
• Brunei Darussalam
• Cook Islands
• Fiji
• Holy See
• Kiribati
• Malaysia
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• Myanmar
• Niue
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saudi Arabia
• Singapore
• Solomon Islands
• South Sudan
• Tonga
• Tuvalu
• United Arab Emirates

While there are a few number of countries that are a Signatory but not yet Party to the treaty:

• China
• Comoros
• Cuba
• Nauru
• Palau
• Saint Lucia
• Sao Tome and Principe

Data: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/DataICCPR.xls
Source: Database of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), January 31, 2013 United Nations - Office of Legal Affairs
​

SECOND:

I believe that we have a misunderstanding between what an "UNalienable rights" is, versus and "INalienable right." And it is a big difference. There is this naive and utopian notion that all human rights are universal, indivisible and related; with all nations treating human rights in a global fashion like computer code, in a fair and equal manner.

Unalienable Rights: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.​

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.​

It is the "INalienable right" (of which you speak) that can be surrendered by merely accepting accepting a certain form of government.

However, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "UNalienable Rights" in the US. So, in answer to your question, no - the distinction is made by others.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinians are subject to many violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

 

[Kondor3]

Palestinians are subject to many violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That's OK.

Given their suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns against Israeli civilian populations over the past couple of decades, I'm sure the Palestinians have also violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights often enough, so, it all evens-out in the end.

 

[georgephillip]

Palestinians are subject to many violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That's OK.

Given their suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns against Israeli civilian populations over the past couple of decades, I'm sure the Palestinians have also violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights often enough, so, it all evens-out in the end.

Not exactly.

"Israelis and Palestinians Killed
in the Current Violence

At least 1,104 Israelis and 6,836 Palestinians
have been killed since September 29, 2000."

Israelis and Palestinians Killed since 9/29/2000

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is an undefined claim. And it goes, hand-in-hand, with the idea presented by our friend "georgephillip" and his "inalienable rights" argument; which can be surrendered, or transferred by actual or constructive consent through their hostile activity. The Hostile Arab Palestinian has forfeited some of these rights by their actions they have taken and the outcomes that resulted.

Palestinians are subject to many violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

(COMMENT)

A number of pro-Palestinians make these broad and sweeping claims in the attempt to portray the part of the victim. But usually, there are just a couple of claims that have any merit.

In most cases, such broad brush strokes of such claims --- like that of "apartheid" and such --- are general appeals to the emotion; but not evaluated in any critical or logical way. It is like the criminal personality that claims his freedom has been violated because he is a prisoner after having committed a crime. Similarly, the quarantine of certain patients that have a disease that presents a threat to the general welfare.

In most cases, individually presented, there are rational reasons for the, at first blush, what might appear as a violation of some perceived "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

For instance, Palestinians claim the right to use "terrorism" and asymmetric warfare in their struggle with Israel; and the associated claim that it is illegal for Israel to respond in kind. Or, --- like your claim that all of the former Mandate of Palestine is Palestinian and occupied by Israelis; and taken by force. Even the question of Israeli Settlements has some mitigation in logic and critical thinking.

It is not the case that we should allow, the Arab-Palestinian claim of Universal Victim, to go unchallenged. While in some cases, there may be some legitimacy to well defined and individual claims, there is simply no way that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians have umbrella coverage under some human rights protocol. At the end of the day, Jihadist and Fedayeen are terrorists. And terrorist have no shield of legitimacy under any human rights protection --- no matter what the claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, this is an undefined claim. And it goes, hand-in-hand, with the idea presented by our friend "georgephillip" and his "inalienable rights" argument; which can be surrendered, or transferred by actual or constructive consent through their hostile activity. The Hostile Arab Palestinian has forfeited some of these rights by their actions they have taken and the outcomes that resulted.

You cannot forfeit rights that were stripped from you before the hostility began!

Palestinian's had every legal right to demand their "right to self-determination" be ensured.

And when they protested this right being taken away from them, it was the Zionists who responded with violence.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's OK.

Given their suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns against Israeli civilian populations over the past couple of decades, I'm sure the Palestinians have also violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights often enough, so, it all evens-out in the end.

You wouldn't know a human right, if it came from Mike Tyson.

You don't give a shit about human rights, so why bring them up?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, yes... No one denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) their "right to self-determination;" they forfeited those opportunities.

Again, this is an undefined claim. And it goes, hand-in-hand, with the idea presented by our friend "georgephillip" and his "inalienable rights" argument; which can be surrendered, or transferred by actual or constructive consent through their hostile activity. The Hostile Arab Palestinian has forfeited some of these rights by their actions they have taken and the outcomes that resulted.

You cannot forfeit rights that were stripped from you before the hostility began!

Palestinian's had every legal right to demand their "right to self-determination" be ensured.

And when they protested this right being taken away from them, it was the Zionists who responded with violence.

(COMMENT)

Which side threw the first punch, has been over taken by events; and is very subjective depending on when the outside observer starts the timeline.

At any time, the HoAP could have adopted a non-violent stance. But it was the HoAP that outlined and declared solemnly the scope and nature of violence.

And while the HoAP seems to always fallback on the claim of the "right to self-determination" --- they seldom explain what they mean when they say that "right" was taken from them.

Remember that, whatever the land may be called that was once part of the Ottoman Empire, IT IS NOT THE CASE that in fact no one has ever claimed, or that it is opened for self-determination; technically called "terra nullius" - empty land (no sovereign coverage). It was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, passed to Turkey (the successor state), and surrendered to the Allied Powers at the end of WWI, and placed in mandate.

In the case of the HoAP, they have the ability (a right of process) to attempt to usurp the Power of the Government having control over the territory. But in doing so, they accept the risks involved and the consequence. But remembering that there is no real agreement on what the outcome of self-determination is, or how the concept is or is not applicable in any given political environment, or even how to implement the right to self-determination. So while the HoAP give the "right of self-determination" top billing and use it as their cornerstone --- very little more can be said about it.

Notwithstanding the theoretical importance of the right to self-determination within the substantive body of international law, consideration and enforcement of this right by individual states and the international community is extremely rare. The reticence of individual states to vindicate the right within their respective borders is not surprising. Few, if any, state governments will voluntarily relinquish authority to a competing political entity. Without a competent, recognizable International organization able to intervene, these conflicts invariably become violent.

SOURCE:- See more at: UNPO: Self determination and conflict transformation

No one took or denied the HoAP the "right of self-determination." The HoAP have not been able to implement it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, yes... No one denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) their "right to self-determination;" they forfeited those opportunities.

Yes they did. At the time Zionists stood up and unilaterally declared Israel a sovereign nation, they only owned 7% of the land rights. And I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the indigenous arabs in that area if they cared to vote on it?

And I'll say this again, because it deserves repeating, there was no major incidents of violence (or hostility) between Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs, until the Zionist migrations began.

And that's prima facia evidence that the genesis of the hostility, began with the Zionists.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, yes... No one denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) their "right to self-determination;" they forfeited those opportunities.

Yes they did. At the time Zionists stood up and unilaterally declared Israel a sovereign nation, they only owned 7% of the land rights. And I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the indigenous arabs in that area if they cared to vote on it?

And I'll say this again, because it deserves repeating, there was no major incidents of violence (or hostility) between Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs, until the Zionist migrations began.

And that's prima facia evidence that the genesis of the hostility, began with the Zionists.

"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.'"

Early Zionists found no reason to hide their colonialism.
Today's version finds it necessary to mask ethnic cleansing with parables of peaceful intentions for people without a land and a land without a people.
In fact, Israel came into existence as a British colony populated by European immigrants whose principle purpose was to advance the interests of Empire in the Middle East.
Jabotisnky, at least, was honest enough to proclaim his true intentions:

" Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators."

"The Iron Wall" | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really. et al,

This was in 1948.

Yes, yes... No one denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) their "right to self-determination;" they forfeited those opportunities.

Yes they did. At the time Zionists stood up and unilaterally declared Israel a sovereign nation, they only owned 7% of the land rights. And I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the indigenous arabs in that area if they cared to vote on it?

(COMMENT)

It was NOT, as you say, unilateral. It was done in accordance with the implementation instruction of the UNPC, under the Steps Preparatory to Independence, pursuant to and in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, and the guidance of the Security Council. The Arab Higher Committee (representing the indigenous arabs) was invited to the UNPC implementation meetings before Independence was declared, but declined. There was no "vote" required.

And I'll say this again, because it deserves repeating, there was no major incidents of violence (or hostility) between Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs, until the Zionist migrations began.

And that's prima facia evidence that the genesis of the hostility, began with the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

The "genesis of the hostility" is much closer to the HAMAS description:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: Hamas Covenant 1988

Whether this is a prima facie case against the "immigrant" as you contend, or an admission of culpability on the part of HoAPs, is subjective. However, it is evidence that there is more than one perspective to consider on the question, even when looking from the HoAP side. It is my opinion that the discord between the two cultures has its origins, at least in part to, a failure to follow the advice of Asher Ginsberg (AKA: Ahad Ha’am) that Jewish settlers must make every attempt not to arouse the wrath of the indigenous population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Billo_Really. et al,

This was in 1948.

Yes, yes... No one denied the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) their "right to self-determination;" they forfeited those opportunities.

Yes they did. At the time Zionists stood up and unilaterally declared Israel a sovereign nation, they only owned 7% of the land rights. And I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the indigenous arabs in that area if they cared to vote on it?

(COMMENT)

It was NOT, as you say, unilateral. It was done in accordance with the implementation instruction of the UNPC, under the Steps Preparatory to Independence, pursuant to and in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, and the guidance of the Security Council. The Arab Higher Committee (representing the indigenous arabs) was invited to the UNPC implementation meetings before Independence was declared, but declined. There was no "vote" required.

And I'll say this again, because it deserves repeating, there was no major incidents of violence (or hostility) between Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs, until the Zionist migrations began.

And that's prima facia evidence that the genesis of the hostility, began with the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

The "genesis of the hostility" is much closer to the HAMAS description:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: Hamas Covenant 1988

Whether this is a prima facie case against the "immigrant" as you contend, or an admission of culpability on the part of HoAPs, is subjective. However, it is evidence that there is more than one perspective to consider on the question, even when looking from the HoAP side. It is my opinion that the discord between the two cultures has its origins, at least in part to, a failure to follow the advice of Asher Ginsberg (AKA: Ahad Ha’am) that Jewish settlers must make every attempt not to arouse the wrath of the indigenous population.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was in 1920

"In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.

"Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.

"A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race.

"Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.

"Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.

"Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.

"In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil.

"After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions.

"Jewish agricultural colonies were founded.

"They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade.

"They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture.

"There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000."

Demographics of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rocco... would you care to speculate on what covenants Hamas will be posting in 2020 if the Zionist policy of "creeping annexation" remains in force in Palestine?