Who Are The Palestinians?

[teddyearp]

As a Christian nation, only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?

Hmm, guess you didn't read my post above, #1473 did you? The U.S. takes in all kinds, what planet are you living on?

And here's a neat video I found to further my post in #1473:

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

 

[Challenger]

Joan Peters passed away today. Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question. Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation. Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective. Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle. Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation. I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them. When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.

From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial

by Joan Peters
Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
Commentary
July 1984

This is awesome, however, most pro-pali's claim that Daniel Pipes is not to be trusted and will discount everything he has said or touched out of hand.

OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:

Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books

 

[Phoenall]

If the Europeans had not colonized Palestine, there wouldn't be Palestinian refugee camps.

As a Christian nation, only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?

They were invited by the lands legal owners, the arab muslims were not invited were they. So they are the illegal immigrants that also stole the land from the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.

What do you mean?

The British threw up their hands and left failing to accomplish their mandate. Their mandate crashed and burned, and all they could do is watch. They passed it on to the UN and they flopped too.

 

[fanger]

Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.

nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

 

[MJB12741]

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

According to WHO??? "The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.

What do you mean?

The British threw up their hands and left failing to accomplish their mandate. Their mandate crashed and burned, and all they could do is watch. They passed it on to the UN and they flopped too.

Because they were sick of arab muslims creating civil unrest and engaging in violence. But the terms of the MANDATE still stood right up until the Jews exercised their right to free determination and declared independence. The mandate ended as far as the arab muslims were concerned in May 1948, and the UN should have sent in a task force to evict the arab muslims from Palestine and Jerusalem until they could learn to live in peace.

 

[Phoenall]

Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.

nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

Why do you ISLAMONAZI STOOGES always miss out the second part of that part of the MANDATE. Here it is in full and it is INTERNATIONAL LAW

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.


Now this makes it clear that the arab muslims have no legal claim to any part of Palestine, and that it is illegal to evict Jews from any country in the world just because they are Jews.

You lose again to CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and it is time the ICC took an interest in every Islamic nation that has evicted Jews since 1920

 

[teddyearp]

OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:

Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books

More interesting information. Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.

Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other. For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.

That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:

Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books

More interesting information. Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.

Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other. For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.

That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.

The two year rule was not made by the UN. Two years from immigration to citizenship was a rule in the Palestinian citizenship order created by the British.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Tinmore loves to repeat the same lie about Resolution 181, that it had flopped. Even though it's been proven MANY times that his statement is alse:

This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947:

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research


Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General AssemblyResolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hossfly]

Tinmore loves to repeat the same lie about Resolution 181, that it had flopped. Even though it's been proven MANY times that his statement is alse:

This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947:

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research


Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General AssemblyResolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Tinmore's logic has alway been: Nobody won, nobody can show a 1948 map and something or other about no borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.