Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Coyote]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question as to why they are not laws, is that they do not direct any particular action to be taken; nor do they prohibit any particular action. These two things lea you directly to why the Resolutions are not enforceable.

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

(a) WHAT is the right to self-determination without external interference?

(b) WHAT is the right to national independence and sovereignty?
​

The way you employ these two resolution, promulgated in 1974, is to suggest that someone ---- somehow ---- denied these rights to the Arab Palestinian. But it does not actually make that accusation.

If you examine the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 Acknowledgement of the Proclamation of the State of Palestine (1988), you will notice that it says:

"Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,"​

The two resolutions you cite serve to remind the Palestinians that they have options ⇒ that only they can fulfill their rights and expectation. The State of Israel could not then, or at any time Declare Independence for the Arab Palestinians.

Further, Resolution 43/177 assert strongly and publicly that some effort "needs to be made to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." This is made difficult by the fact that "the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) of Palestine sent to the United Nations a formal declaration of war (A/AC.21/10) in “self-defense” against any attempt to partition the Holy Land." (See: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION DAILY NEWS SUMMARY – 10, dated 7 February 1948)

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,” and charged the United States with having exercised “flagrant interference and pressure” to force votes favoring partition. (Browne; N.Y. Times)"​

(NOTE)
International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

In the last 20 years, that Arab Palestinian has made no attempt at a good faith effort in the settle or their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state. Building and expanding Jewish only settlements in occupied territories is good faith or peaceful means.

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Palestine originally and directly referred to Jews and ancient Israel, and reflects the ancient Jewish heritage and history of the land

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question as to why they are not laws, is that they do not direct any particular action to be taken; nor do they prohibit any particular action. These two things lea you directly to why the Resolutions are not enforceable.

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

(a) WHAT is the right to self-determination without external interference?

(b) WHAT is the right to national independence and sovereignty?
​

The way you employ these two resolution, promulgated in 1974, is to suggest that someone ---- somehow ---- denied these rights to the Arab Palestinian. But it does not actually make that accusation.

If you examine the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 Acknowledgement of the Proclamation of the State of Palestine (1988), you will notice that it says:

"Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,"​

The two resolutions you cite serve to remind the Palestinians that they have options ⇒ that only they can fulfill their rights and expectation. The State of Israel could not then, or at any time Declare Independence for the Arab Palestinians.

Further, Resolution 43/177 assert strongly and publicly that some effort "needs to be made to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." This is made difficult by the fact that "the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) of Palestine sent to the United Nations a formal declaration of war (A/AC.21/10) in “self-defense” against any attempt to partition the Holy Land." (See: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION DAILY NEWS SUMMARY – 10, dated 7 February 1948)

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,” and charged the United States with having exercised “flagrant interference and pressure” to force votes favoring partition. (Browne; N.Y. Times)"​

(NOTE)
International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

In the last 20 years, that Arab Palestinian has made no attempt at a good faith effort in the settle or their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state. Building and expanding Jewish only settlements in occupied territories is good faith or peaceful means.

Renowned legal scholar Eugene Rostow: There is no Israeli occupation. Settlements are lawful

> Google Groups

Eugene V. Rostow '37: Dean, Scholar, Statesman - Yale Law School

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Winston Churchill, Secretary of State of British Mandate: Arabs crowd into the land

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question as to why they are not laws, is that they do not direct any particular action to be taken; nor do they prohibit any particular action. These two things lea you directly to why the Resolutions are not enforceable.

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

(a) WHAT is the right to self-determination without external interference?

(b) WHAT is the right to national independence and sovereignty?
​

The way you employ these two resolution, promulgated in 1974, is to suggest that someone ---- somehow ---- denied these rights to the Arab Palestinian. But it does not actually make that accusation.

If you examine the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 Acknowledgement of the Proclamation of the State of Palestine (1988), you will notice that it says:

"Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,"​

The two resolutions you cite serve to remind the Palestinians that they have options ⇒ that only they can fulfill their rights and expectation. The State of Israel could not then, or at any time Declare Independence for the Arab Palestinians.

Further, Resolution 43/177 assert strongly and publicly that some effort "needs to be made to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." This is made difficult by the fact that "the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) of Palestine sent to the United Nations a formal declaration of war (A/AC.21/10) in “self-defense” against any attempt to partition the Holy Land." (See: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION DAILY NEWS SUMMARY – 10, dated 7 February 1948)

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,” and charged the United States with having exercised “flagrant interference and pressure” to force votes favoring partition. (Browne; N.Y. Times)"​

(NOTE)
International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

In the last 20 years, that Arab Palestinian has made no attempt at a good faith effort in the settle or their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state. Building and expanding Jewish only settlements in occupied territories is good faith or peaceful means.

It is occupied by Israel, but between 1948 and 1967 it was not occupied by Jordan, as Gaza was occupied by Egypt?

Building is in Area C only, as the Oslo Accords allow.
Israel is not building in areas A and B, Arabs only. No Jews work there either.
Israel builds for Jews in Area C, and for the 300,000 Arabs who live in Area C as well.
Arabs who get to work for Jews, and sometimes enter their Jewish homes and kill them, as it has happened how many times now?

These are disputed territories because Jordan was the last one to have control of it for 19 years. No one had sovereignty over it, no country. Therefore they are not occupied by Israel .

The Oslo Accords were to start solving the issue of educating the Arabs to co-exist with Israel. Arafat went the other way and so has Abbas.

Those are the issues which need to be solved. Again....the LEADERS and their insistence that Israel keep giving up land without getting nothing in return.

If one does not understand Arab/Muslim mindset since Mohammad, of how he went about winning his wars, etc, one can never understand why Al Husseini, Arafat, Abbas and all other Muslim leaders continue to teach hatred for Jews and Israel in their own schools.

The Leaders. How to make them want peace.

Does it take two sides, or is it only one side which always must give in whether for peace or to surrender?

 

[JoelT1]

Jews are the indigenous People of Israel since antiquity

Arabs are indigenous to Arabia

 

[Coyote]

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

I am curious:
With what weapons, with what army, with what numbers, with what power or anything else, could the Jews have planned to ethnically cleanse the Mandate for Palestine of Arabs before 1948?
(Even if there was a Plan Dalet, which was never implemented, how were the Jews supposed to win against so many Arabs? Make all of them move away from their homeland, if they did not manage to get TranJordan back from the Hashemites, or Gaza?)

Let us consider the number of Arabs in the Mandate by 1948.
Let us consider the number of Arab countries surrounding what was to become Israel in 1948.

Just what plan could that have been which would have succeeded in getting rid of all the Arabs in the Mandate?

Who said anything about driving all the Arabs out of the Mandate?

You did:

"No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out,"

I wasn't referring to the entire mandate but to the area Israel finally claimed for its state.

And when did it happen and how? What was going on at the time?
Who planned for the Arabs to leave and for what reason and for how long?

It is said that the victor gets to write history and that is certainly true in this case. The " official" narrative was that the Arab leaders told them to flee and they would then drive out the Jews and they could return. The historical record is somewhat different. Some fled as per the claim but most fled either out of fear of war or were deliberately targeted and driven out as part of an ethnic cleansing effort in that area.

According to Israeli author Benny Morris and recently declassified Israeli documents:

Another crucial precondition was the penchant among Yishuv leaders to regard transfer as a legitimate solution to the "Arab problem." Recently declassified Zionist documents demonstrated the virtual consensus emerged among the Zionist leadership, the the wake of the publication in July 1937 of the Peel Commission recommendations, in favor of the transfer of at least several hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs--if not all of them-- out of the areas of the Jewish state-to-be. The tone was set by Ben-Gurion himself in June 1938:

"I support compulsory [Palestinian Arab population] transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral."

Ben-Gurion's views did not change--though he was aware of the need, for a tactical reasons, to be discreet. In 1944, at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive discussing how the Zionist movement should deal with the British Labor Party decision to recommend the transfer of Palestinian Arabs, he said:

"When I heard these things. . . I had to ponder the matter long and hard ....[but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] . . . Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer . . . because speaking about the matter might harm [us] . . . in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] . . . it would alert and antagonize the Arabs . . ."

Also, to Benny Morris noted, the Palestinians who fled in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli military attacks, fear of impending attacks; and deliberate expulsions. While there was no centralized policy - expulsions were ordered by the Israeli high command as needed.

Morris has written several books based on information from documents in government and university archives that contained a great deal of information from that period that had never been made public.

In his book: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 Morris documents atrocities by the Israelis, including cases of rape and torture. Out of 228 empty Palestinian villages, the 4inhabitants were expelled by the IDF from 41 and in another 90, they fled due to attacks on neighboring villages. Only in six could he confirm that they left under orders from Arab authorities. For the remaining 46, he could not find a reason for why they were abandoned.

Benny Morris himself is an interesting figure and is hardly a Palestinian sympathizer. He clearly points out culpability for the refugee problem in both Israel's actions and those of the Arabs and defies the white-washed version of Israel's history. He is a professor of Middle East history in Ben-Gurion University, and he considers himself a Zionist. After publishing his first book he was denounced as an anti-Semite and compared with Holocaust deniers, a well worn tactic against those that depart from the accepted history of Israel.

 

[JoelT1]

Renowned Arab scholar, historian and intellectual Fouad Ajami: Arabs attacked Israel and fled The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State

 

[Coyote]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Per your first paragraph, genetics shows the Palestinians closely related to Jews, a mixture of indigenous peoples and Arabs. Not much different then the fact that Jews also include some European blood.

And like those who attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of Jews, you are doing the same to the Palestinians by claiming they are Arab invaders.

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Per your first paragraph, genetics shows the Palestinians closely related to Jews, a mixture of indigenous peoples and Arabs. Not much different then the fact that Jews also include some European blood.

And like those who attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of Jews, you are doing the same to the Palestinians by claiming they are Arab invaders.

History Lesson: Jews were first called palestinians Read, learn

 

[rylah]

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state. Building and expanding Jewish only settlements in occupied territories is good faith or peaceful means.

Palestinian Arabs have a functioning state for a decade - called Gaza.
This state power was used for 2 purposes only:

1. Subjugate it's own population, for aid money and propaganda
2. War against Israel and the Jews as a whole.

On the other hand, Israel evicted all of it's people - using their state force to enable a Jew free Gaza as the Palestinians demanded. Israel even left them some active businesses so that they could start producing and exporting on their own.

Q. When did EVER the Palestinian Arabs use ANY of it's force, state, military or economic - in good faith and peaceful means?

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Per your first paragraph, genetics shows the Palestinians closely related to Jews, a mixture of indigenous peoples and Arabs. Not much different then the fact that Jews also include some European blood.

And like those who attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of Jews, you are doing the same to the Palestinians by claiming they are Arab invaders.

Complete nonsense.

Jews are linked to Israel by DNA. There is no such thing as European blood LOL!!!

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Per your first paragraph, genetics shows the Palestinians closely related to Jews, a mixture of indigenous peoples and Arabs. Not much different then the fact that Jews also include some European blood.

And like those who attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of Jews, you are doing the same to the Palestinians by claiming they are Arab invaders.

The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs do indeed, identify with a variety of Arabian tribes by ancestry and tradition. They're divided between 2 fractions - Northern tribes and tribes of Yemen, like in EVERY society in Arabia up till today.
The Kurds are the descendants of Saladin army, the Husseinis are Hashemites, the Banu Abbas are Arabian noble tribe, the Tamimis of Hebron belong to the royal tribe of Qatar etc.

Again this is not name calling - this is what the Palestinians openly identify with.
And when another Hashemite king from Iraq conquered the lands in recent history they all accepted him as a king - no claims of foreign influence were voiced.


But let's call the things by their name - Arab Muslims ARE invaders and colonizers of the Levant. And this is not to say they don't have rights due to their longstanding presence.
It's just when You use words such as 'indigenous', it's crucial to clear this things up.

Jews are indigenous to Judea, Arabs to Arabia.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

Ok, we get the point you want to make, however irrelevant. You made claims that it was the Romans and the British and the philistines....who coined the name. None of it matters at all. Every people starts somewhere and the Palestinians, whatever you choose to call them have roots that go back a long ways. The rest is semantics.

Coyote,

The Arabs have roots which go a long way. In Arabia. And then they branched out into the areas they conquered. They are now Morrocans, Lybians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.
Now there are the Palestinians who borrowed the name in 1964, but wanted to be Syrian.

It is important to learn why they are Palestinians and not Syrians, today. Why their leaders chose that Nationality and so late after Israel became Independent.

Call them Arabs, call them Palestinians, they were offered Statehood four times so far and the leaders have rejected it. THE LEADERS.

I will ask again, HOW is the world going to make the Palestinian leaders give up their aim to destroy Israel, come to the table, negotiate as Egypt and Jordan did, and come to a Peace treaty as it was done with them?

What is the process for the Arabs to give up destroying Israel and killing all the Jews, as it continues to be part of their charter, and they have no intention of changing it Ever.

The negative, destructive ideas of the Arab leaders, from Al-Husseini to Abbas, need to go, be done with in order for any chance for peace to happen.

Agree, disagree, or what is your other solution.

Those are the issues which continue to take over the Arabs living in what was the Mandate for Palestine.

How to solve the most important issue of them all. The Arab leaders and their refusal to change what their goal has been since 1920?

Per your first paragraph, genetics shows the Palestinians closely related to Jews, a mixture of indigenous peoples and Arabs. Not much different then the fact that Jews also include some European blood.

And like those who attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of Jews, you are doing the same to the Palestinians by claiming they are Arab invaders.

Coyote, seriously,

Did the Arab Muslims invade the Land of Israel in the 7th century or not? Yes or no?
Am I "claiming it", or the Arab invasion actually happened and the Arabs who lived in the region of "Palestine" and their descendants, and those who immigrated at the end of the 19th century or early 20th century, are all descendants of people whose indigenous land is called Arabia?
Never mind all that. Why are the Arabs insisting that the Jews who went to Europe from Asia thousands of years ago, are only Europeans and not indigenous of the land of Israel?
Why are the Palestinians insisting that there is no Jewish History in the land of Israel, on the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem, at the Cave of the Patriarchs, etc?

Do you see a pattern here of delegitimizing Jews and their right to any part of their homeland, or not? There is none happening? How to stop it if it is happening?

Having some Jews forced into Islam, or in recent times choosing to become Muslims, and then their descendants having some Jewish blood, does not make All of the Arabs who now reside in Gaza, Israel, or Judea and Samaria "related" to Jews or having any rights to any part of the Jewish Homeland. Why? Because they are not Jews anymore. They are not following Judaism.
You are repeating "genetic" tests which have been debunked several times.
How many of those Arabs who allegedly took the test, which would show that about "80%
of Palestinian Arabs are related to Jews" have taken any other tests to confirm it?
What are their names? From which Arab clans?

But again, I have said, and others have said it as well. The Arabs have been offered several offers to create their State on the Mandate for Palestine. A second one actually, since the Hashemite clan ended up with 78% of it.

Why won't the leaders come to the table without preconditions and work out a peace agreement the way the Arab Jordanians and Egyptians were capable of doing?

When can the PLO, Fatah and Hamas bury their charters where they vow the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews?

Should not that be a good starting point?

Teach towards co-existance. How about that?

 

[Indeependent]

I did not say there were no disputes

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

Come off it Ry,the Pogroms were from Russia circa 1890's,Europe and Spain(not under the Moors rule but the Catholic Barbarians,in fact if you had bothered to enquire about Jewish History,you would know like me,that the Moors and Jews joined forces to fight off the Catholic invasion,incidentally the fleeing Jews were given safe heaven in Islamic Constantinople which is Istanbul Turkey today...so the Jews flourished in Muslim Spain and Muslim Constantinople)since 760 AD onwards and those filthy Nazis (who the Zionists collaborated with)1930 onwards,there were few problems with the Palestinians until the 1920's when the realization of the Zionists intentions were fully understood...you must know that these Zionists were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and Christian Europe despised them,and gave them No safe heaven against the barbarity of the Nazis and others.tor

I won't "come off it" simply because it doesn't fit Your narrative.
Your Palestine Kumbaya fairytale is just that - Arab fairytale of 1001 nights.

Whole communities of Palestinian Jews had to flee to Damascus and Egypt because of those Arab Pogroms - prior to Zionism.

1517 Safed
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Safed Pogrom
1834 - Hebron Pogrom
1840- Damascus
1850 - Aleppo
1860 -Damascus

Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Pogroms before Zionism?

,I did not say there were no disputes,but very few,you will also note Damascus and Aleppo are not in Palestine,most of the nearly 2000 years the Jews(you say Palestinian Jews,and I thank you Ry for that aknowlegment) things were harmonious.......moreover when we compare to Europe and the Christians,the Palestinian-Jewish disputes are just a Piss in the Ocean...You have completely exaggerated the situations,you should Love your Palestinian brethren more as I do, the very fine Jews throughout history...you are saying your inaccurate statements are the facts...they are not...Why do you Never criticize the Christians,Catholics,Russians and Germans...yet you continually rabbit on about how terrible the Palestinians are.and considering what the Jews have done to the Palestinians makes your prose churlish indeed..it shows a very ignorant and weak attitude in my opinion,I hope in future instead of an inaccurate one-liners Ry,you like me delve deeper into the facts....Have a good day Ry...I am not your enemy

Things were always good between Jews and Arabs when Jews paid their tax.

Goodness Indeependent....I must say you have excellent mirth

One of my favorite drinks.

 

[JoelT1]

Arabs invaded Syria and to a lesser degree Israel. Umayyad Arab Muslims were based in Damascus

 

[Sixties Fan]

Veneer of positivity fades in Palestinian unity talks as tough issues surface

 

[Sixties Fan]

CAMERA Snapshots: Fatah: A ‘Sea of Blood’ Will ‘Create the State of Palestine’