Who Are The Palestinians?

[rhodescholar]

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS. Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media. There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"? Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"? If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"?

No.

Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"?

No.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, then don't make shit up. Go with what is actually said, and if you have to, also consider the context in which it was said. It's not rocket science it's basic reading skills.

 

[montelatici]

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.

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS. Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media. There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?

None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting. The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.

The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:

"...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS. Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media. There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?

Discredited by whom?

So you say.

 

[Coyote]

No ISRAELIS.

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

Are you EVER honest?

Words have meanings.
"No Israeli's" means something, particularly in the context of what was discussed. NO FOREIGN TROOPS. NO FOREIGN ENCLAVES. No swiss-cheese state. If he wanted to say NO JEWS don't you think he would have?

 

[RoccoR]

Dogmaphobe, Coyote, et al,

Part of this is very engaging by individual perspective; yet wrong in its application.

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.

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians

(COMMENT)

Neither I, nor Dogmaphobe, Coyote, or anyone else can truly legitimize HAMAS (or any other government) --- nor can we de-legitimize a government. Legitimacy is like a color. It is either "blue" or "not blue;" realizing that in the spectrum of colors - there are varying shades of "blue." But if you see "green" (the color right next to "blue"), and I see "blue" --- there is very little chance that we will agree in the face of what we consider irrefutable evidence. We will assume that the other is "color blind."

The cumulative belief that builds to a critical point that the summation of the all individual common beliefs is that the people of Gaza have placed their trust and confidence in HAMAS to rule, have established institutions to effectively rule, and has a recognized leader that has been given the right to govern in the name of the people of Gaza. This is, what we generally understand as "Internal Legitimacy" --- commonly defined in political science and sociology perspective defined by those that are governed.

The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views. The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza. It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government. An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States. And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations.

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.

(COMMENT)

Preface Note:
The more common term is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” also appears in the texts. The latter may suggest a wider prohibition, though in most contexts the two terms seem to be used interchangeably. (Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination)
External self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state. (Cornell Law School LLI)​

There are multitude of conflicting points to the issue of self-determination and sovereignty with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It is much easier to separate the points by jointly recognizing the key foundational positions which are undisputed:

• 
  Palestinians should enjoy sovereign equality with all other members of the international community; including equal rights and duties as equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature. Palestinian sovereign equality includes the following elements:
  
  1. The State of Palestine (SoP) should be judicially equal;
  2. SoP should enjoy the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
  3. SoP has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
  4. The territorial integrity and political independence of the SoP are inviolable;
  5. The SoP has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
  6. The SoP has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

I think we generally agree that the SoP has the right to be free from intervention, directly or indirectly, in SoP internal or external affairs. This would include armed intervention or interference against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. Conversely, no State --- including the SoP --- shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil domestic affairs in another State. This would include the use of force to deprive peoples (that of the SoP or its neighbors) of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. I think we also agree that the SoP has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

Having said that, and I chose are language of agreement carefully, that there is one "key point" on which this all rests: The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered: (Declaration on Principles (DOP) of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations)

• • 
    Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
  • 
    
    States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
    
    The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.
    
    States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    
    International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the Sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the Principle of free choice of means. Recourse to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.
    
    Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from the applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.
    

With regard to extending the SoP any of the sovereign rights that it should have, it must also be the case that the SoP must accept the duties and responsibilities under the DOP to which all other states are held accountable. That would include the renouncement of the HAMAS Covenant, and the Political Position published in March 2013. It is the case that the HAMAS cannot claim the right to Jihad and the refuse the recognition of another state sovereignty and yet demand that it be recognized. It cannot deny the same rights to Israel as it demands for itself. It cannot claim legitimacy when it openly violated the DOP.

We mutually agree (IMO) on many points. What we disagree on is the is the recognition of HAMAS relative to its obligations as a Government that follows International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS. Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media. There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?

None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting. The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.

The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:

"...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.

 

[Coyote]

Dogmaphobe, Coyote, et al,

Part of this is very engaging by individual perspective; yet wrong in its application.

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.

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians

(COMMENT)

Neither I, nor Dogmaphobe, Coyote, or anyone else can truly legitimize HAMAS (or any other government) --- nor can we de-legitimize a government. Legitimacy is like a color. It is either "blue" or "not blue;" realizing that in the spectrum of colors - there are varying shades of "blue." But if you see "green" (the color right next to "blue"), and I see "blue" --- there is very little chance that we will agree in the face of what we consider irrefutable evidence. We will assume that the other is "color blind."

The cumulative belief that builds to a critical point that the summation of the all individual common beliefs is that the people of Gaza have placed their trust and confidence in HAMAS to rule, have established institutions to effectively rule, and has a recognized leader that has been given the right to govern in the name of the people of Gaza. This is, what we generally understand as "Internal Legitimacy" --- commonly defined in political science and sociology perspective defined by those that are governed.

The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views. The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza. It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government. An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States. And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations.

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.

(COMMENT)

Preface Note:
The more common term is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” also appears in the texts. The latter may suggest a wider prohibition, though in most contexts the two terms seem to be used interchangeably. (Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination)
External self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state. (Cornell Law School LLI)​

There are multitude of conflicting points to the issue of self-determination and sovereignty with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It is much easier to separate the points by jointly recognizing the key foundational positions which are undisputed:

• 
  Palestinians should enjoy sovereign equality with all other members of the international community; including equal rights and duties as equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature. Palestinian sovereign equality includes the following elements:
  1. The State of Palestine (SoP) should be judicially equal;
  2. SoP should enjoy the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
  3. SoP has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
  4. The territorial integrity and political independence of the SoP are inviolable;
  5. The SoP has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
  6. The SoP has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

I think we generally agree that the SoP has the right to be free from intervention, directly or indirectly, in SoP internal or external affairs. This would include armed intervention or interference against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. Conversely, no State --- including the SoP --- shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil domestic affairs in another State. This would include the use of force to deprive peoples (that of the SoP or its neighbors) of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. I think we also agree that the SoP has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

Having said that, and I chose are language of agreement carefully, that there is one "key point" on which this all rests: The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered: (Declaration on Principles (DOP) of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations)

• • 
    Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
  • 
    
    States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
    
    The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.
    
    States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    
    International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the Sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the Principle of free choice of means. Recourse to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.
    
    Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from the applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.

With regard to extending the SoP any of the sovereign rights that it should have, it must also be the case that the SoP must accept the duties and responsibilities under the DOP to which all other states are held accountable. That would include the renouncement of the HAMAS Covenant, and the Political Position published in March 2013. It is the case that the HAMAS cannot claim the right to Jihad and the refuse the recognition of another state sovereignty and yet demand that it be recognized. It cannot deny the same rights to Israel as it demands for itself. It cannot claim legitimacy when it openly violated the DOP.

We mutually agree (IMO) on many points. What we disagree on is the is the recognition of HAMAS relative to its obligations as a Government that follows International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with what you lay out above - on how states should behave and the expectations for SoP. Totally. I also agree that HAMAS - should it be considered a "legitimate" partner for peace, for example, must renounce it's covenant and must acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and must be able to follow international standards of conduct. In fact, I totally agree with you on HAMAS.

What I am confused about is "legitimacy". If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate" until such a time as it does something to end that legitimacy - for example, refusing to hold elections or give up power?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views. The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza. It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government. An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States. And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations.

First off, Hamas was not elected "in Gaza." It was elected in all of Palestine. It was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and the West Bank.

Second, you have never explained the internal laws that Hamas was supposed to have violated.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?

Not that many people actually think, though.

Most simply hit their favorite hate site and mimic whatever they read there. The issue is compounded by people's inability to grasp the logical fallacies inherent in the appeals to authority (the Chomsky clones) or especially the appeal to popularity. Arabs and Muslims take advantage of their enormous numerical advantage relative to Jews by dominating the conversation, thus providing such a background of hate that it can be hard to resist for the feeble-minded.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"? Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"? If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.

It always devolves into a game of dishonest semantics with Coyote and other Arab propgandists. The intent is to support in code what one might be loathe to support openly -- at least to the Kaffirs.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Legitimacy: Yes, this is even hard for most career diplomats to absorb.

I agree with what you lay out above - on how states should behave and the expectations for SoP. Totally. I also agree that HAMAS - should it be considered a "legitimate" partner for peace, for example, must renounce it's covenant and must acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and must be able to follow international standards of conduct. In fact, I totally agree with you on HAMAS.

What I am confused about is "legitimacy". If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate" until such a time as it does something to end that legitimacy - for example, refusing to hold elections or give up power?

(COMMENT)

Two Kinds:

• External Legitimacy: This is the kind that you, I, and P F Tinmore talk about all the time. It is how we externals view the Government of HAMAS.
  • Your Question: If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate?"
    • Answer: This is the simplest of views. It is a form of "strict compliance." It is either "freely and fairly elected" or "not" (Black or White) --- that is the criteria. No moral evaluation or thought required. It does require us to look a Arab Palestinian competency (understanding a specific issue, consequence of the decision, refusing policy in favor of alternatives) or capacity (to make a particular decisions that fluctuate according to the political conditions as they change) to nation build or establish a government.

• Internal Legitimacy: What the Arab Palestinians believe to be true.
  • Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
  • If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
  • How does the SoP exist and where does Fatah fit in?
  • Who is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people?
  • What is the interpretation of the United Nations role in the role of recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice; relative to the SoP?
  • OR - is it Fatah which actually as able to attain successful international recognition of the SoP?

What happens to the legitimacy of the State of Palestine (SoP), if the Arab Palestinian abandons it connection with the PLO, and essentially dissolves the connection with the UN? Do the people of Palestine even understand the potential consequences involved?​

The "simplest view" (compliance oriented) is the easiest view and the most cited because it doesn't require any thought. It doesn't require us to think about the consequences. But then, when the ugly consequences appear, the Arab Palestinians are the first to cry foul, and play the role of the perpetual victim. The political consequences behind becoming a "state" was merely the latest in a long series of consequences to the refugees which they haven't yet absorbed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Thank you Rocco - that's best explanation I've had on this. Food for thought. Many thanks for taking the time to post this

 

[P F Tinmore]

• Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
• If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?

You have good questions.

You are the expert. What are the answers?

 

[aris2chat]

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?

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Al-Jabhah al-Dimuqratiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin)
Fatah or Liberation Movement of Palestine (Harakat al-Tahrâr al-Filistini)
Hamas or Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyah)
Palestine Democratic Union (al-Ittihad al-Dimuqrati al-Filastini, FiDA)
Palestinian National Initiative (al-Mubadara al-Wataniya al-Filistiniyya)
Palestinian People's Party (Hizb al-Sha'b al-Filastini)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Al-Jabhah al-sha'abiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin)

PLO Members

Fatah – Largest faction, secular, left-wing nationalist.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – Second largest, radical left militant and communist
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) – Third largest, communist
The Palestinian People's Party (PPP) – Ex-communist, Social Democratic, non-militant
The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF, Abu Abbas faction) – Minor left-wing faction
The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) – Minor faction, aligned to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
As-Sa'iqa – Syrian-controlled Ba'athist faction
The Palestine Democratic Union (Fida) – Minor democratic socialist, 2 state solution, non militant faction
The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF, Samir Ghawsha faction) – minor socialist faction
The Palestinian Arab Front (PAF) – minor pro-Fatah, former Iraqi Ba'athists faction

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.

 

[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.

Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.

Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm an not an expert.

• Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
• If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?

You have good questions.

You are the expert. What are the answers?

(COMMENT)

This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat. They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.

From a realist standpoint (the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address) is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government. The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take. While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS (doing the exact opposite) has captured significant community support. It remains to be seen how it plays out. But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.

Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.

Sadly not going to happen is palestinians keep up with the attack, if there in no unity government between the WB and G so they can speak with one voice, if there is no recognitions and if the palestinians are unwilling to sit down and negotiate with Israel instead of making unreasonable hard lines demands to even approach a table let alone sit down and listen.