Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[thetor]

I did not say there were no disputes

I won't "come off it" simply because it doesn't fit Your narrative.
Your Palestine Kumbaya fairytale is just that - Arab fairytale of 1001 nights.

Whole communities of Palestinian Jews had to flee to Damascus and Egypt because of those Arab Pogroms - prior to Zionism.

1517 Safed
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Safed Pogrom
1834 - Hebron Pogrom
1840- Damascus
1850 - Aleppo
1860 -Damascus

Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Pogroms before Zionism?

,I did not say there were no disputes,but very few,you will also note Damascus and Aleppo are not in Palestine,most of the nearly 2000 years the Jews(you say Palestinian Jews,and I thank you Ry for that aknowlegment) things were harmonious.......moreover when we compare to Europe and the Christians,the Palestinian-Jewish disputes are just a Piss in the Ocean...You have completely exaggerated the situations,you should Love your Palestinian brethren more as I do, the very fine Jews throughout history...you are saying your inaccurate statements are the facts...they are not...Why do you Never criticize the Christians,Catholics,Russians and Germans...yet you continually rabbit on about how terrible the Palestinians are.and considering what the Jews have done to the Palestinians makes your prose churlish indeed..it shows a very ignorant and weak attitude in my opinion,I hope in future instead of an inaccurate one-liners Ry,you like me delve deeper into the facts....Have a good day Ry...I am not your enemy

Disputes?? What a nice Islamist doublespeak.

When the Arabs rioted against the Egyptians in Palestine - Jews were still targeted FIRST in Jerusalem.
The'y weren't a even part of the argument between the two.

Do You know what was one of the main "disputes" between the Egyptians and Arabs in Palestine, beside conscription to army?] It was that all of a sudden Arab Muslims had to be equal to Jews and Christians, in status and taxation. This apparently was enough. I'm not exaggerating.

Q. How about Arabs raping both men and women of Safed - as a way to solve a non-existent "dispute" that Jews weren't a part of?

Q. How about an attraction in a marketplace where one can excite the public with "predictions" on possible dates of next Arab pogroms ? Sounds like harmony or sectarian disorder?

Seriously ignorant people. Most Israeli Jews are native to Israel and the Middle East

They certainly are NOT,they are the REVERSE of that

And of course you have a degree in genetics, or are an expert on this or that, or something else, with a Pulizer Prize and a Nobel Prize to boot.

The absolute and total refusal to give Jews their due.

MOST of them did go into Europe and other areas of the world, from the time of the First Temple. It does not make them Germans if they lived in Germany, or Italians if the lived in Rome, and then Italy as witnessed by all the descendants of Jews who either went with Caesar to Rome, or later on in 70 CE after the destruction of the Second Temple.

You cannot and never will, be able to prove that the indigenous people of the land of Israel, the Jews, are not the indigenous people of the land of Israel.

You do not have the knowledge, the tools or anything else which would help you prove such a statement.

All you have is the word of the Arabs, who are invaders to the land since the 7th century and even have acknowledged that the Land of Israel does belong to the Jews.

It was an Arab, in the 7th Century, who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, while the Christians before them had done as the Romans had done. Keep the Jews out of Jerusalem to insult them.

There are good Muslims, there are bad Muslims. The good ones have always wanted to live in peace with the Jews, on the ancient Jewish Homeland.
The bad ones, they like to humiliate, kick, beat, steal, worse even ( and they have done all of those things in the examples Rylah gave and which neither you, nor the other ones care about, because it is about Jews, any Jews getting the worse.

The truth about the Jewish people is not dependent on people like you or anyone else who thinks like you.

It is exactly because of this kind of thinking that Herzl and others realized that there was only one thing to do.
Return to their homeland and become sovereign over part of it.

It is simple. The simplest thing in the world.

When any place treats one badly, or worse, one tends to go back home. Jews had been doing that for centuries, not just in the 19th, or 20th century. Home is home. Home for the Jews is Israel.

End of story.

Well the Palestinian were there before the Romans ....Most Illegal Jews from 1920 onwards were Converts to Judaism,something you seriously do not comprehend they had not material desire other than Doctorine re Palestine because they were from Central Asia originally and that is thousands of miles away...Herzl was an athiest,and had no interest in Your God...In fact Herzl's Zionists collaborated with the Nazis aND HELP SEND jEWS TO THE cHARNALS .O for such ignorance on Jewish history would be hard to find...I like most Jews and their contribution to mankind cannot be equated,so great it has been(like others)

for you perusal and education

 

[Sixties Fan]

I did not say there were no disputes
,I did not say there were no disputes,but very few,you will also note Damascus and Aleppo are not in Palestine,most of the nearly 2000 years the Jews(you say Palestinian Jews,and I thank you Ry for that aknowlegment) things were harmonious.......moreover when we compare to Europe and the Christians,the Palestinian-Jewish disputes are just a Piss in the Ocean...You have completely exaggerated the situations,you should Love your Palestinian brethren more as I do, the very fine Jews throughout history...you are saying your inaccurate statements are the facts...they are not...Why do you Never criticize the Christians,Catholics,Russians and Germans...yet you continually rabbit on about how terrible the Palestinians are.and considering what the Jews have done to the Palestinians makes your prose churlish indeed..it shows a very ignorant and weak attitude in my opinion,I hope in future instead of an inaccurate one-liners Ry,you like me delve deeper into the facts....Have a good day Ry...I am not your enemy

Disputes?? What a nice Islamist doublespeak.

When the Arabs rioted against the Egyptians in Palestine - Jews were still targeted FIRST in Jerusalem.
The'y weren't a even part of the argument between the two.

Do You know what was one of the main "disputes" between the Egyptians and Arabs in Palestine, beside conscription to army?] It was that all of a sudden Arab Muslims had to be equal to Jews and Christians, in status and taxation. This apparently was enough. I'm not exaggerating.

Q. How about Arabs raping both men and women of Safed - as a way to solve a non-existent "dispute" that Jews weren't a part of?

Q. How about an attraction in a marketplace where one can excite the public with "predictions" on possible dates of next Arab pogroms ? Sounds like harmony or sectarian disorder?

Seriously ignorant people. Most Israeli Jews are native to Israel and the Middle East

They certainly are NOT,they are the REVERSE of that

And of course you have a degree in genetics, or are an expert on this or that, or something else, with a Pulizer Prize and a Nobel Prize to boot.

The absolute and total refusal to give Jews their due.

MOST of them did go into Europe and other areas of the world, from the time of the First Temple. It does not make them Germans if they lived in Germany, or Italians if the lived in Rome, and then Italy as witnessed by all the descendants of Jews who either went with Caesar to Rome, or later on in 70 CE after the destruction of the Second Temple.

You cannot and never will, be able to prove that the indigenous people of the land of Israel, the Jews, are not the indigenous people of the land of Israel.

You do not have the knowledge, the tools or anything else which would help you prove such a statement.

All you have is the word of the Arabs, who are invaders to the land since the 7th century and even have acknowledged that the Land of Israel does belong to the Jews.

It was an Arab, in the 7th Century, who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, while the Christians before them had done as the Romans had done. Keep the Jews out of Jerusalem to insult them.

There are good Muslims, there are bad Muslims. The good ones have always wanted to live in peace with the Jews, on the ancient Jewish Homeland.
The bad ones, they like to humiliate, kick, beat, steal, worse even ( and they have done all of those things in the examples Rylah gave and which neither you, nor the other ones care about, because it is about Jews, any Jews getting the worse.

The truth about the Jewish people is not dependent on people like you or anyone else who thinks like you.

It is exactly because of this kind of thinking that Herzl and others realized that there was only one thing to do.
Return to their homeland and become sovereign over part of it.

It is simple. The simplest thing in the world.

When any place treats one badly, or worse, one tends to go back home. Jews had been doing that for centuries, not just in the 19th, or 20th century. Home is home. Home for the Jews is Israel.

End of story.

Well the Palestinian were there before the Romans ....Most Illegal Jews from 1920 onwards were Converts to Judaism,something you seriously do not comprehend they had not material desire other than Doctorine re Palestine because they were from Central Asia originally and that is thousands of miles away...Herzl was an athiest,and had no interest in Your God...In fact Herzl's Zionists collaborated with the Nazis aND HELP SEND jEWS TO THE cHARNALS .O for such ignorance on Jewish history would be hard to find...I like most Jews and their contribution to mankind cannot be equated,so great it has been(like others)

for you perusal and education

The "Palestinians" were there before the Romans?
The Jews of today are from Central Asia?
And they were illegal immigrants? Doctrine? From 1920 on?
Only from 1920 on?
What does Herzl being an Atheist have anything to do with him knowing that Israel was his homeland because that is where his ancestors came from?
The only thing the German Jews collaborated with the Germans was to get the Jews the heck out of Germany to save them from the Nazis.

You like most Jews.

What a sweetheart. We need more people like you in the world

 

[thetor]

Disputes?? What a nice Islamist doublespeak.

When the Arabs rioted against the Egyptians in Palestine - Jews were still targeted FIRST in Jerusalem.
The'y weren't a even part of the argument between the two.

Do You know what was one of the main "disputes" between the Egyptians and Arabs in Palestine, beside conscription to army?] It was that all of a sudden Arab Muslims had to be equal to Jews and Christians, in status and taxation. This apparently was enough. I'm not exaggerating.

Q. How about Arabs raping both men and women of Safed - as a way to solve a non-existent "dispute" that Jews weren't a part of?

Q. How about an attraction in a marketplace where one can excite the public with "predictions" on possible dates of next Arab pogroms ? Sounds like harmony or sectarian disorder?

Seriously ignorant people. Most Israeli Jews are native to Israel and the Middle East

They certainly are NOT,they are the REVERSE of that

And of course you have a degree in genetics, or are an expert on this or that, or something else, with a Pulizer Prize and a Nobel Prize to boot.

The absolute and total refusal to give Jews their due.

MOST of them did go into Europe and other areas of the world, from the time of the First Temple. It does not make them Germans if they lived in Germany, or Italians if the lived in Rome, and then Italy as witnessed by all the descendants of Jews who either went with Caesar to Rome, or later on in 70 CE after the destruction of the Second Temple.

You cannot and never will, be able to prove that the indigenous people of the land of Israel, the Jews, are not the indigenous people of the land of Israel.

You do not have the knowledge, the tools or anything else which would help you prove such a statement.

All you have is the word of the Arabs, who are invaders to the land since the 7th century and even have acknowledged that the Land of Israel does belong to the Jews.

It was an Arab, in the 7th Century, who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, while the Christians before them had done as the Romans had done. Keep the Jews out of Jerusalem to insult them.

There are good Muslims, there are bad Muslims. The good ones have always wanted to live in peace with the Jews, on the ancient Jewish Homeland.
The bad ones, they like to humiliate, kick, beat, steal, worse even ( and they have done all of those things in the examples Rylah gave and which neither you, nor the other ones care about, because it is about Jews, any Jews getting the worse.

The truth about the Jewish people is not dependent on people like you or anyone else who thinks like you.

It is exactly because of this kind of thinking that Herzl and others realized that there was only one thing to do.
Return to their homeland and become sovereign over part of it.

It is simple. The simplest thing in the world.

When any place treats one badly, or worse, one tends to go back home. Jews had been doing that for centuries, not just in the 19th, or 20th century. Home is home. Home for the Jews is Israel.

End of story.

Well the Palestinian were there before the Romans ....Most Illegal Jews from 1920 onwards were Converts to Judaism,something you seriously do not comprehend they had not material desire other than Doctorine re Palestine because they were from Central Asia originally and that is thousands of miles away...Herzl was an athiest,and had no interest in Your God...In fact Herzl's Zionists collaborated with the Nazis aND HELP SEND jEWS TO THE cHARNALS .O for such ignorance on Jewish history would be hard to find...I like most Jews and their contribution to mankind cannot be equated,so great it has been(like others)

for you perusal and education

The "Palestinians" were there before the Romans?
The Jews of today are from Central Asia?
And they were illegal immigrants? Doctrine? From 1920 on?
Only from 1920 on?
What does Herzl being an Atheist have anything to do with him knowing that Israel was his homeland because that is where his ancestors came from?
The only thing the German Jews collaborated with the Germans was to get the Jews the heck out of Germany to save them from the Nazis.

You like most Jews.

What a sweetheart. We need more people like you in the world

For YouJudenrat - Wikipedia

www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

Dream on with you contrived Bull _hit

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question as to why they are not laws, is that they do not direct any particular action to be taken; nor do they prohibit any particular action. These two things lea you directly to why the Resolutions are not enforceable.

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

(a) WHAT is the right to self-determination without external interference?

(b) WHAT is the right to national independence and sovereignty?
​

The way you employ these two resolution, promulgated in 1974, is to suggest that someone ---- somehow ---- denied these rights to the Arab Palestinian. But it does not actually make that accusation.

If you examine the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 Acknowledgement of the Proclamation of the State of Palestine (1988), you will notice that it says:

"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,"​

The two resolutions you cite serve to remind the Palestinians that they have options ⇒ that only they can fulfill their rights and expectation. The State of Israel could not then, or at any time Declare Independence for the Arab Palestinians.

Further, Resolution 43/177 assert strongly and publicly that some effort "needs to be made to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." This is made difficult by the fact that "the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) of Palestine sent to the United Nations a formal declaration of war (A/AC.21/10) in “self-defense” against any attempt to partition the Holy Land." (See: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION DAILY NEWS SUMMARY – 10, dated 7 February 1948)

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,” and charged the United States with having exercised “flagrant interference and pressure” to force votes favoring partition. (Browne; N.Y. Times)"​

(NOTE)
International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

In the last 20 years, that Arab Palestinian has made no attempt at a good faith effort in the settle or their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,”

How is defending yourself from attack be a declaration of war. Aren't the attacking parties responsible for their war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only.

What about foreign non governmental armed forces attacking a civilian population?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Not true. They all continue to live in their own country while the Palestinians live elsewhere.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Coyote, et al,

Well, may be we should look at some of the chronology here. Remember, absent the provocation like that of imminent attack, the first use of armed force = aggression...

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

(COMMENT)

Not including the 1920 Jerusalem riots (provoked by Islamic Religious Leaders) or the 1929 Arab riots (Arab attacks on Jews):

√ The Palestinian Black Hand was an anti-Zionist and anti-British Jihadist militant organization founded in 1930.

• The Irgun was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931.
• Lehi, (AKA: Stern Gang) was a Zionist paramilitary organization founded in 1940.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoelT1]

The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Not true. They all continue to live in their own country while the Palestinians live elsewhere.

Palestine was a Roman name for ancient Israel referring to Greek Philistines: Are palestinians Italian, Greek or Jewish? LOL

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Um, Arabs began identifying as palestinians in the 1960s. Arafat was Egyptian

Jews were first called palestinians by the British

Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Ever hear of the Bible?

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I am confusing the issues at all.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

(COMMENT)

The isolated sentence here, only serves to illuminate that the Arab Palestinians have never been treated significantly different from that of the other populations in the Middle East carve-outs. The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

(COMMENT)

This is a very naive perspective. The entire Arabian World history is filled to the brim with monarchies of one sort or another.

There are many many states that were deposed only to be reconstituted into another form. The question - "Who has the authority to end a state" - is absurd; no more enlightened than asking who has the right to breath air.

While it may be very ideologically sounding to talk about the relationship between "sovereignty" and the "people;" in reality, it is the government that exercises territorial sovereignty every single day.

But when you make such arguments, you open yourself to the question: "What Arab Palestinian every exercised sovereignty over anything?" To say that the government is an "extensions of the People's sovereignty" means what? Exactly how is that applied daily? Sovereignty, as we apply it in these discussions is the application of fundamental norms that regulates the conduct of states in the international community (ie Article 2 stuff in the UN Charter). And in that vein, you judge the extent of sovereignty by a comparative analysis. SO; in comparison to every other Middle Eastern State, how to the Arab Palestinians compare?

(1) That States are juridically equal; have the Arab Palestinians even attempted to establish a judicial landscape comparable to any other regional neighbor?

(2) That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; every other state has established internationally recognized borders and control those borders. Do the Arab Palestinians now, or at any time in the past 1000 years, have this independent and self-governing territory?

(3) That the personality of the State is respected, as well as its territorial integrity? Have the people of the Arab Palestinian State actually assembled and constructed a framework of a State anywhere reassembling any neighbor?

(4) That the State should, perform the duties and obligations similar to any other state? I suggest that the Arab Palestinians do not now, and have not done so in the past for more than a 1000 years.
​

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?
(COMMENT)

OH, this is just so sad. Honestly, does this have any resemblance to the historical record?​

It fits exactly.

Jews’ home in ancient Israel thousands of years ago http://en.unesco.org/galleries/whc-2015-beth-she-arim-necropolis-landmark-jewish-revival-israel

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Like the drama Queens that they are, there was no attack.

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,”

How is defending yourself from attack be a declaration of war. Aren't the attacking parties responsible for their war?

(COMMENT)

UP and until the UN Resolution 181(II), Mandate authority had no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.​

In July 1947, the Mandate Authority asked the United Nations to consider the report on the irreconcilable differences, and to recommend a settlement of the problem.

Almost immediately the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) opened hearings. Prominent among those giving testimony were the Representative of the Arab States which rejecting the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and declared that the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition; or that would give to a minority special and preferential status. And as we all know, on 29 November 1947, The Resolution 181(II). Hostilities almost immediately began (Civil War → Arabs 'vs' Jews).

From that point, until the Oslo Accords, the Arab Palestinians rejected any peace agreements. The Arab Palestinian favors armed conflict as the means of dispute resolution. Conflict is seen as a meas to achieve what they cold not achieve through diplomacy and peaceful meas.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoelT1]

History Lesson: When Jews were first called “palestinians”

 

[JoelT1]

History Lesson: Palestine, Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That falls into the category and ICRC led discussion on typology of armed conflicts and related issues:

• Armed Groups and International Law •​

In this case, the court has to decide:

Some Arab Palestinians consider the May 1948 Conflict as being a conflict between citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate. (That is a Civil War NIAC.)

Some Arab Palestinians consider the conflict between Israel and the territories formerly under the Mandate.

Some Outside Observers see the conflict between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Still other Outside Observers see the conflict as a struggle between first ceased from Jordan then abandon by Jordan; placed in the hands of Israel.

There are all sorts of views that are considered that could change the entire outlook on the sovereignty and the type of conflict.

Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only.

What about foreign non governmental armed forces attacking a civilian population?

(COMMENT)

Depending in the Rules of Land Warfare being used, the scope and nature of the may fall under Article 4, Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) wherein: "Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents." Remember that this was written in 1907, the intention here may have broader implications in a Poost-WWII era.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the consequence of the "Right of Self-Determination."

The Arab Palestinians were treated the same as the the people which formed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Not true. They all continue to live in their own country while the Palestinians live elsewhere.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian decided it was in their best interest to choose conflict (the threat of and use of force) as a means to achieve their ends. They choose a different path and lost.

They have to accept the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoelT1]

History Lesson: “For Arabs, there was no country called palestine”

 

[Coyote]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Coyote, et al,

Well, may be we should look at some of the chronology here. Remember, absent the provocation like that of imminent attack, the first use of armed force = aggression...

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

(COMMENT)

Not including the 1920 Jerusalem riots (provoked by Islamic Religious Leaders) or the 1929 Arab riots (Arab attacks on Jews):

√ The Palestinian Black Hand was an anti-Zionist and anti-British Jihadist militant organization founded in 1930.

• The Irgun was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931.
• Lehi, (AKA: Stern Gang) was a Zionist paramilitary organization founded in 1940.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ok, point taken.