RoccoR
Gold Member
loinboy, et al,
Now here is an issue.
Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:
When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty." All of which are great ideals. But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals. They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals. Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.
Are they not all products of the very same system. Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?
Exactly what is that something? And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now here is an issue.
(COMMENT)The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine. But unfortunately, that's not what happened.
Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:
- What were the "rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine?"
When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty." All of which are great ideals. But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals. They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals. Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.
Are they not all products of the very same system. Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?
Exactly what is that something? And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R