Who Are The Palestinians?

[Coyote]

I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.

Problem solved.

I think at this point there is so much ingrained distrust and hate that living together would be difficult if not dangerous.

And, from a humanitarian standpoint - the Jews would be a minority. They are a minority that has historically been subject to pogroms, discrimination, and massacres in Europe and in the Mid East. The Holocaust exterminated nearly 2/3 of Europe's Jewish population. That's an incredible number just to wrap your mind around and it's not "ancient history", it's a modern event that remains still in living memory. I don't bring it up lightly or as an excuse, but ask yourself this.

If you were Jewish, would you ever trust your safety, security and life to the majority decisions of a group that essentially hates you? Would you trust your children's future to this new majority? No where else in the world are Jews a majority or even a significant minority. Anti-semitism - while often over used as an excuse - is still very real and rears it's ugly head periodically, usually hand in hand with a rise in Nationalism and economic down-turns where people need a scapegoat.

How would you assure the Jews that they would be equal citizens in a Palestinian/Muslim majority nation? That their lives and property would be safe? That the hatred, empowered by a majority, wouldn't erupt into violence? That they wouldn't be ejected from Israel like they were from Arab countries during the founding of Israel.

There's a lot to overcome and I don't think either side can readily let go of hate, anger, mistrust and myth until they've had time, seperately, to work it out and hopefully establish a pattern of cooperation over confrontation.

 

[MJB12741]

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

Let the truth be known to all.

The Middle East destroys itself - NY Daily News

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are

 

[toastman]

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

Coming from you, this is hilarious . Everything Rocco said is 100% correct.

"The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference"

Nope, the Palestinians and other Arabs were the ones who decided not to exercise their sovereignty by rejecting the partition plan.
There was no illegal external interference that affected their rights to sovereignty . You're making up history..again..

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are

Oh really? What part of his post refuted my post?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are

Oh really? What part of his post refuted my post?

If you are unable to see that yourself, than you either did not read his post or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Links to what?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

(COMMENT)

The links are embedded. There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

Got links is a ridiculous reply. Any fool can find links to support any position on any issue. One needs to be able to think rationally to sort out what is real & or true. But then we forgive you for your inability to do so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Links to what?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

(COMMENT)

The links are embedded. There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R

I saw your links. What parts refute my post?

 

[toastman]

What's the point of posting links for you Tinmore. No matter how clearly the link refutes what you claimed, you will still deny it

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I explained it in the original post.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Links to what?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

(COMMENT)

The links are embedded. There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R

I saw your links. What parts refute my post?

(COMMENT)

You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent." Not true. While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.

You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them." I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I explained it in the original post.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Links to what?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

(COMMENT)

The links are embedded. There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R

I saw your links. What parts refute my post?

(COMMENT)

You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent." Not true. While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.

You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them." I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.

Most Respectfully,
R

If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.

Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?

 

[Mindful]

Where did they come from?

Who knows?

God?

 

[MJB12741]

Oh how I wish the Palestinians could have their own Palestinian State with self determiination so they wouldn't have to suck off Israel to provide for them any longer. The question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, we could write an entire encyclopedia on this one question: "If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from?"

Basically --- you can start by distinguishing between ‘natural justice' (inherent rights - deemed to pre-exist actual social and political systems) and 'legal justice’ (stipulated rights by social and political systems); wherein the natural right is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance; emanating from a moral universalism and adopted by historical conventions. The aim of documenting a natural (inherent) human right is directly connected to the development of moral universalism and is the basis for determining the shape, content, and scope of fundamental, public moral norms. This differs from 'legal justice’ (stipulated rights), which are man-made and not universally recognized from one cultural society to the next. [Sharia Law differs dramatically from Western Law in terms of Human Rights especially (but not exclusively) in gender related issues.]

First, let me clarify, I said "the right to self-determination without external interference" is not "inherent" --- but that it may be "inalienable" (two entirely different concepts). I also said that the "the right to self-determination without external interference" is not the same thing as "right to sovereignty."

If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.

Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?

(OBSERVATION)

Human rights have been defined as basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees "rights" suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary. Human rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented by the legal system or officials of a country. (James Nickel, Professor of Law and Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology, Making Sense of Human Rights, 1992:561-2)

Relative to self-determination: Self-determination remains a rhetorical tool utilized by groups within states seeking independence, autonomy, or simply a greater degree of control over issues that directly affect them. Many of these groups share ethnic, linguistic, or other characteristics, but the international law of self-determination -- as opposed to a few non-binding declarations and recommendations -- has never accorded to such groups any special right of self-governance. Given the widely divergent situations within states, it is unlikely that self-determination will acquire a sufficiently determinate definition to enable it to be used as a legal tool for adjudicating disputes, even if it continues to be interpreted as excluding unilateral secession. However, the political appeal of the term is unlikely to fade, and it is possible that its use will lead to an expansive interpretation of human rights norms concerning identity and effective participation and thus offer new opportunities for accommodating conflicting principles of diversity and unity.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-determination, The Encyclopedia Princetoniensis, Princeton University

(COMMENT)

For a "right" (any human right) to be "inherent" --- it must be beyond criticism --- universally understood and a universally embedded foundational. This is certainly not the case with either:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

While these two rights are stipulated (stipulated rights by social and political systems) as applying in individual cases (as in the case of Palestine), they are not fundamentally and universally accepted as applying to everyone - everywhere.

As to the second question: Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?

Such rights are documented and submitted to the social collective having legal authorities to establish man-made law. To this end, there has been drafted and adopted various declarations and legal conventions issued (in the last half-century), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the European Convention on Human Rights (1954), and the International Covenant on Civil and Economic Rights (1966).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I explained it in the original post.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Links to what?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right. That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that. It says: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right. What it says is: "The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts. You haven't offered a fact. In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific. And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of freedom, justice and peace in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

1. Reaffirms the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right. It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred. This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War. It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination (without external interference) when they declared independence (uncontested by the Israelis). The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?

(COMMENT)

The links are embedded. There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R

I saw your links. What parts refute my post?

(COMMENT)

You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent." Not true. While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.

You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them." I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.

Most Respectfully,
R

If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.

Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?

You have the right to breath. The right to struggle through life. The right to find a meaning for yourself. The right to die. That is all life gives you.
Organized communities or national agree to by laws and rights. With those rights also come obligation on your part. Nothing in life is given to you. Civilization is where you get your rights, not anarchy, not god given.
You have to earn the rights you take for granted by positive actions towards others. If you give nothing, you deserve little or nothing. Rights are reciprocal. If you infringe on the right of others you will quite probably loose some or all of your rights.
Other people give you rights by cooperation with them in a community. Right are something you constantly work for.
Golden rule.

 

[Coyote]

The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself

 

[MJB12741]

The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself

Rights are whatever the rulers of any land say they are. Here in the USA we must pay our taxes & obey all laws determined by our elected government. But we have the RIGHt to protest.