Who Are The Palestinians?

[rhodescholar]

The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face. They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust. Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."

The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state. With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.

But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.

 

[rhodescholar]

What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.

Really? You have proof that the israeli government and military under its command ordered it to ethnically cleanse most or all of the arab muslims in the region? Good luck finding it.

 

[theliq]

The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face. They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust. Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."

The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state. With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.

But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.

What a complete load of ROT and denial of the truth and facts.......you need to be mentally examined.steve

 

[aris2chat]

The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face. They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust. Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."

The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state. With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.

But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.

Perhaps a better question would be "which country would you rather live next to, Israel or Palestine"
On the moral ground of giving the palestinians a determinant home, either among their fellow arabs or a "palestinian" state, we would all likely want them to have a place to settle down, have jobs, ID/Passports. But would the palestinians supports want the palestinians as their neighbors? Jordan wants Israel to retain control of the Jordan valley, Egypt offer the palestinians land next to gaza n the sinai. They don't want the palestinians up against their own populated areas as we have seen egypt create a security zone. An island in the middle of the pacific with no airport or deep water ports, sure that can learn to live in peace or destroy themselves, not everyone else. Build them a mount and a gloriously beautiful large mosque if they can't build one for themselves. Farms/greenhouses, housing etc., might cost less than this endless pit where billions are dropped every year. If it makes them happy they can live in tents and raise sheep and goats or develop their own arts and crafts, tool, businesses. Countries hosting the refugee don't want them and won't let them get jobs, or only certain lower paying jobs.
Sure give them a country, just not at our back door. If Sweden want to eager to recognize them, given them half their land and recognize them as neighbors. Many countries of europe want to put limits on immigration of muslims in general and only willing to give a very small pecentage of their quota to palestinians willing to become citizens.
If palestinians were peaceful people that had lost their land to a natural disaster, the worlds national would be opening their arms to welcome them in. For too long the major industry of the palestinians has been hate and warfare. They are unwilling to give that up even if the price is their own state. That is all Israel has really been asking of them "let us live securely in peace" For the end of the 19th through the 21st if palestinians had agreed the could have had their state.
It is not a state, it is wanting Israelis' state, their ancient and religious homeland. For the majority of muslims their religious homeland is Mecca. As a race they are a blend of the entire region and the races than came through as traders or conquerors. They are not an ancient race with culture, language, religion that go back a millennium or more. There was never a nation of people or palestine till the mandate ended. They were offered a state and refused.
We hope that recognition would bring peace, but it won't, not till they recognize Israel's right to exist and are willing to live in peace and cooperation with Israel. Does any one or any nation really believe it will happen? Sure give them a state over there in Israel's back yard, just not ours. That is what the world is really saying.
How do you teach palestinians to think first of peace and how do you get them to give up their arms and hateful rhetoric against Israel and it's supporters?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your source is close.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

​

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we? When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.

(REFERENCES)

• • 
    "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." SOURCE: Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
  Part I. General Provisions

• 
  Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

• 
  Section III. Occupied territories
  
  Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What your source (Articles The Jihad Lawyer) interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see. And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power." If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply. But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47). It does not say: "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."

It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.

(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

(COMMENT)

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War. After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law." Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:

• 
  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." A/RES/25/2625

Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues. The policy is:

• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?

The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders

What UN resolution references the occupation?

For starters 242 lays down the ground rules of peace and mutual borders. And the Palestinians are for ever quoting that one aren't they ?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

(COMMENT)

First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically. It is an evolutionary process. In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion." [The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work: Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination​

What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process. But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970. In your initial opening question: "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?" It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations. While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right." The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right. That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.

• Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

• Chapter IX, Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970: the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.

(HAVING SAID THAT)

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:

• Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
• External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; albeit a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

 

[Coyote]

What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.

Really? You have proof that the israeli government and military under its command ordered it to ethnically cleanse most or all of the arab muslims in the region? Good luck finding it.

I already gave my sources for this.

 

[MJB12741]

Coyote, et al,

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

(COMMENT)

First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically. It is an evolutionary process. In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion." [The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work: Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination​

What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process. But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970. In your initial opening question: "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?" It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations. While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right." The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right. That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.

• Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

• Chapter IX, Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970: the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.

(HAVING SAID THAT)

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:

• Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
• External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; albeit a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

I am totally supportive of a Palestinian State with self determination. What a relief that would be for Israel to not have to provide for them & be in an endless conflict with them anymore. Problem is where to put it. Palestinians want to be free from Israel & no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a Palestinian State.

 

[Coyote]

On your premiss any family or group on a ranch could have the right to self determination. Nor can any state decide to succeed and become it's own nation.

Not necessarily.

The difference is that currently, the Palestinians exist in a stateless and citizenless void where their lives are controlled by a hostile power.

There has to be a form of income or barter within the "state" and trade with other nations. Police, laws, some form of court, fire department, monetary system, communication (mail, phone, internet), health system, waste disposal that does not pollute the soil or water of it's neighbor, banking system, education, etc.
Right now a large section of the palestinian population is dependent on other agencies and nations to provide these things.

Yes. But who controls trade and access ultimately? Who controls potential wealth such as off-shore resources on the Palestinian coast? How will you find ready investors (as opposed to donors) for long standing economic growth when you have such an uncertain future? No state, no borders, multiple layers of governance that ultimately depend on Isreal's goodwill?

It is far more than just wanting to be out on your own but being "able" to do so. Palestinians can not manage even the most basis needs without relying on outside sources. If you buy products and services, you have to earn enough to pay. Countries refer to this as balance of trade. You want more going out rather than coming in. Palestinians have no means to support this.
The palestinians have devoted too much into waging war and don't know how or are not ready to devote all their people to peace which would help build the nation they dream of.
Building tunnels and stealing from or attacking other is not a skill set to create a nation. It is a skill set to create criminals.

Implement the two state solution, and let them build what they need. Isn't that what Israel did once they drove out the British?

If they fail, they fail. If they succeed, they succeed. But how long can you keep a people stateless, citizenless, subject to a foreign power's occupation?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

(COMMENT)

First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically. It is an evolutionary process. In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion." [The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work: Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination​

What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process. But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970. In your initial opening question: "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?" It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations. While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right." The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right. That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.

• Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

• Chapter IX, Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970: the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.

(HAVING SAID THAT)

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:

• Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
• External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; albeit a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

I am totally supportive of a Palestinian State with self determination. What a relief that would be for Israel to not have to provide for them & be in an endless conflict with them anymore. Problem is where to put it. Palestinians want to be free from Israel & no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a Palestinian State.

Negotiate for Gaza, West Bank and landswaps. Otherwise you are no better than the people who insist the Jews be returned to Europe.

 

[Coyote]

Actually...in these arguments, it would probably be good to make a distinction between Palestinians in the West Bank and those in Gaza....

 

[Lipush]

Gaza is not to be negotiated. It's under Arab control, and the only reason Israel gets involved in that hellhole is because of the armed forces and terror organizations in there.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, either.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote, et al,

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

(COMMENT)

First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically. It is an evolutionary process. In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion." [The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work: Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination​

What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process. But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970. In your initial opening question: "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?" It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations. While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right." The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right. That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.

• Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

• Chapter IX, Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970: the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.

(HAVING SAID THAT)

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:

• Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
• External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; albeit a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

In the works or scheduled

An airport located to the east of Jericho with plans for another in the WB

An a railway line between Gaza and Cairo

Other plans for a deep water port in Gaza is planned, condition permitting.

 

[Lipush]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

 

[Coyote]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

I've never championed Hamas. I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results. As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole. You obviously have an issue with me. I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.

 

[aris2chat]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

Till Hamas permits new election. Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza. WB is controlled by Fatah and PA. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat. When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.

 

[MJB12741]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

Till Hamas permits new election. Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza. WB is controlled by Fatah and PA. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat. When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.

The Palestinian people themselves duly elected the terrorist organization Hamas to represent them & carry out their wishes regarding Israel. Now they must accept the result of their own doing.