Who Are The Palestinians?

[Challenger]

..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....

Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
Lebanon= created by the French
Iraq = created by the British
Syria = created by the French
Jordan= created by the British
Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.

Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

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.

You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails

Lebanon fought for their autonomy under the Ottoman empire. They paid taxes but how Lebanon functioned from within was between the princes, lords, tribes and religious leaders.

Palestinians were given that under Oslo and used that opportunity for infighting and to attack Israel.
That is not what the authority was intended to do in creating their own state. The authority was a stepping stone, the chance or organize their management and train their people for the hand over to statehood.
Two intafadas; several wars; constant bombing, riots and attacks. Was this really the best preparation for living side by side with Israel? Was any of it in the best interest of the palestinians or persuading Israel to be more generous or flexible in negotiation?

 

[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.

Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.

Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with

Of course you don't. But he represents the other side. I doubt they care very much for your view on Jeruselum.

No more than we care about that damn mosque, they don't.

I rather handle Hamas than Handle Abbas. At least they're honest with their agendas.

 

[aris2chat]

..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....

Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
Lebanon= created by the French
Iraq = created by the British
Syria = created by the French
Jordan= created by the British
Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.

Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.

>>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<

Rejected by the arabs. After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

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.

You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails

Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?" Did they cease the use of violence prior to that? Did Egypt? Did Jordan? They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers. Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?

YesIsreal did transition away from fighting to peace as they already had self determination and self governance. The fact that Isreal has sat down and negotiated a just peace and mutual borders with two of its neighbours shows they did transition from fighting towards peace. You are getting confused on just what self determination is, and how it affects different people. The rules that applied in 1948 were comp-lately different to the rules of today, so don't try and force todays rules on what happened in 1948 or 1967. Egypt is an old country around since Biblical times, Jordan is a new country formed out of the promises made during WW1 and was originally meant to be the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. And what you need to remember is that for 1400 years the Jews were being brutalised by the muslims, and when they were given the chance of a new homeland they were prepared to fight to the last man for it. BUT it was not the Jews that started the fighting was it, as shown by the 1929 massacres or the 1931 civil war, but the arab muslims and their nationalist views of the world.


Every Islamic nation is a colony of Saudi Arabia, as they all look to Saudi for spiritual guidance, that is were your M.E. colonialism stems from. How can Israel be a colonial power when it has no parent state from which it is a colony ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf. The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again. Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000. Arafat refused the best offer. The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.

You're probably right - you can't split it again. But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith. Same with right of return. Everything needs to be discussed. No preconditions for talks. No preconditions for peace.

Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within? If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.

Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all. That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace. There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions. PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either. The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war. Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees. Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G? Wage after wave have push other palestinians out. How do you reverse the process? After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning". Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel

I don't support right of return - it's not going to happen and it would be demographic suicide. What I'm saying is the Palestinians can't keep it off the table as a precondition that is non-negotiable. Everyone is going to have to give up some skin in this and the right of return is likely something the Palestinians will have to give up. At least for most of them.

The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.

 

[Coyote]

The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.

Except...they never said "no Jews".

Nice bit of fiction though

 

[rhodescholar]

I already gave my sources for this.

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source. As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.

 

[Coyote]

I already gave my sources for this.

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source. As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.

Refute the points. Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line. It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.

 

[P F Tinmore]

..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....

Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
Lebanon= created by the French
Iraq = created by the British
Syria = created by the French
Jordan= created by the British
Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.

Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.

>>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<

Rejected by the arabs. After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.

The Palestinians never rejected their state or self determination.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

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.

You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails

Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?" Did they cease the use of violence prior to that? Did Egypt? Did Jordan? They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers. Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?

>>Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?" Did they cease the use of violence prior to that?<<

Jews were being attacked. They had to form militias in an effort to protect themselves. After independence they were still in state of war with four of it's neighbors and some 20 more unwilling to have any relations or to recognize Israel. They are still being attack so when should it have given up their arms of defensive posture? Governance was well in place before the mandate ended. When a state was declared and Israel was attacked the militias become the army to defend the state.
When should they have ceased violence? After each war? After exchanging land for peace? After oslo and the beginning of the authority? After each ceasefire with hamas? After attack at train stations and killing of infants in Jerusalem? After riots and fires by palestinians on the mount?
At what point should they have laid down their weapons and their guard?

 

[rhodescholar]

You're probably right - you can't split it again. But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith. Same with right of return. Everything needs to be discussed. No preconditions for talks. No preconditions for peace.

As a general statement about your comments, they are the typical liberal, uninformed blather about "negotiations," "refugees," and "land/borders," which have no relation to the conflict whatsoever. These are media/diplomatic fig leafs used to obscure the real issues which have driven this conflict from the beginning, and until directly addressed will do so for another 1,000 years:

1) the arab muslim intolerance of non-muslim sovereignty in the mideast. There are dozens of other groups being ethnically cleansed, oppressed and slaughtered by arab muslims across the mideast; any vestige of sovereignty attained by any of these groups leads to an assault against them by arab muslims. The only reason the Israeli conflict is in the news is twofold: 1) everyone hates the jews 2)Israel has been successful at retaining its independence and sovereignty for so long.

2) terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah and islamic: as long as groups like this exist, and significant enough portions of the gaza/west bank arab populations believe that violence/war/terrorism is a superior alternative to negotiations - something they have believed for 70+ years - no agreement, no peace contract, etc will make the slightest difference.

3) external dictatorial powers such as iran that use the conflict to retain their power base: as was the case 6 months after the Oslo accord was signed, iran's cancerous regime, who needs to stoke this conflict perpetually to maintain an external enemy, ordered the first suicide bombing against Israel. Every time that an agreement is close to being achieved, iran orders terrorist attacks by it proxy armies in gaza/west bank.

Bottom line, as long as arab muslims refuse to tolerate the sovereign rights of others in the mideast, there are terrorist groups in gaza/west bank, and the external terrorist regimes like iran exist, it is utterly pointless to even suggest peace agreements.

THIS IS NOT A LAND ISSUE, IT IS NOT A "REFUGEE" ISSUE, it has nothing to do with settlers, water, land, borders, etc. It is the total unacceptance of the existence of a jewish (non-muslim) entity in the mideast, and the history and facts affirm this.

 

[aris2chat]

..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....

Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
Lebanon= created by the French
Iraq = created by the British
Syria = created by the French
Jordan= created by the British
Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.

Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.

>>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<

Rejected by the arabs. After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.

The Palestinians never rejected their state or self determination.

>>"It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?” says the Palestinian Authority president.

Abbas R 311. (photo credit:REUTERS)


The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

“At the time, 1947, there was [General Assembly] Resolution 181, the partition plan for Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished. Why?”Abbas said as he described the UN resolution, designated to create a Jewish and an Arab state.

Asked why the Arabs had rejected the plan while Jewish leaders accepted it, Abbas replied: “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?” Palestinian leaders have always insisted that Resolution 181, which paved the way for Jewish statehood in parts of then-British-ruled Palestine, must be resisted by Arabs who went to war over it.

Decades of regional fighting have hinged on challenges to Israel’s existence and expansion.

By describing historical fault on the Arab side, Abbas appeared to be offering Israel an olive branch, while promoting his own bid to sidestep stalled peace talks by winning UN recognition for a sovereign Palestine.

When the interviewer suggested the reason was Jewish leaders’ acceptance of the plan and its rejection by the Arabs, Abbas said: “I know, I know. It was our mistake. It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.”

The Prime Minister’s Office did not comment on the interview.

Israeli officials acknowledged the significance of the statement regarding 1947, but also noted the vague language that Abbas used, which fell short of recognizing that Israel – even back then – was intended to be a Jewish state.

Palestinians have said they recognize the State of Israel, but not the Jewish nature of the state.

The question, said one Israeli official, who requested anonymity, is what mistake did Abbas reference? Does Abbas regret that the Palestinians failed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in 1947, asked the official. Or did Abbas imply that it was a tactical mistake to go to war instead of accepting a two-state solution.

“If Abbas wants to show that he has learned from his mistakes, he should articulate what was the mistake,” the official said.

“I would like to hear Abbas say that the mistake was that Palestinians should have recognized [in 1947] that two states for two peoples is the right solution, and that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own. But he didn’t say that,” said the official.

Abbas’s comments come as the international community is pushing to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

The Palestinians have insisted that for negotiations to resume, Israel must stop settlement construction in the West Bank and Jewish building in east Jerusalem.

Israel has said the root of the conflict is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and not the settlements.

Palestinians in the past year have turned away from a negotiated solution in favor of seeking statehood without negotiating with Israel. They have asked the UN Security Council to recognize them as a member state of the UN.

On Friday, Abbas told Channel 2 that UN recognition of their independence would help Palestinians pursue negotiations with Israel, which in turn could produce an “extra agreement that we put an end to the conflict.”

His language raised the hackles of his Islamist Hamas rivals, who control the Gaza Strip and with whom Abbas is trying to consolidate an Egyptian-brokered power-sharing accord.

Hamas opposes coexistence with Israel.<<

 

[rhodescholar]

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

Why can't you put responsibility on the arab muslims for not creating a third option besides the corrupt Fatah and murderous terrorists of hamas? Are arab muslims incapable of developing normal, functioning, legitimate, honest political parties with sensible responsibilities towards governing? Why are so many so racist against arab muslims that they are unable to recognize how far they will lower the bar to apologize and excuse away behavior that would never be tolerated for non-muslims?

 

[rhodescholar]

Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though

Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.

 

[rhodescholar]

Refute the points. Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line. It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.

Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc. Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.

 

[Coyote]

Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though

Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.

You might follow your own advice.

No ISRAELIS.

No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.

Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.

And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Exactly. Who holds the magic wand?

Perhaps the Palestinians going to the UN directly to make their case for recognition is the best move. It's civilized .

The words "civilized" and "Palestinian" are entirely different concepts.

Civilized people do not elect genocidal terrorist organizations to lead them, and all the excuses you offer by way of your support for their having done so does not change that fact one iota.

 

[Coyote]

Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though

Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.

You might follow your own advice.

No ISRAELIS.

Refute the points. Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line. It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.

Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc. Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.

Again. Feel free to post your own sources refuting what I posted.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No ISRAELIS.

But much dishonest sophistry that takes the form of a semantic ruse.

Are you EVER honest?