Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

Janna Jihad

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Linkiloo]

Mahmoud Darwish

Mahmoud Darwish (Arabic: محمود درويش‎) (13 March 1941 – 9 August 2008) was a Palestinian poet and author who won numerous awards for his literary output and was regarded as the Palestinian national poet. In his work, Palestine became a metaphor for the loss of Eden, birth and resurrection, and the anguish of dispossession and exile. He has been described as incarnating and reflecting "the tradition of the political poet in Islam, the man of action whose action is poetry".

Mahmoud Darwish was born in the village of al-Birwa in the Western Galilee. He was the second child of Salim and Houreyyah Darwish. His family were landowners. His mother was illiterate, but his grandfather taught him to read. After Israeli forces assaulted his village of al-Birwa in June 1948 the family fled to Lebanon, first to Jezzin and then Damour. The village was then razed and destroyed by the Israeli army to prevent its inhabitants from returning to their homes inside the new Jewish state. A year later, Darwish's family returned to the Acre area, which was now part of Israel, and settled in Deir al-Asad. Darwish attended high school in Kafr Yasif, two kilometers north of Jadeidi. He eventually moved to Haifa.

He published his first book of poetry, Asafir bila ajniha or Wingless Birds, at the age of nineteen. He initially published his poems in Al Jadid, the literary periodical of the Israeli Communist Party, eventually becoming its editor. Later, he was Assistant Editor of Al Fajr, a literary periodical published by the Israeli Workers Party (Mapam). Darwish was impressed by the Arab poets Abed al-Wahab al Bayati and Bader Shaker al-Sayab.
Darwish left Israel in 1970 to study in the USSR. He attended the University of Moscow for one year, before moving to Egypt and Lebanon. When he joined the PLO in 1973, he was banned from reentering Israel. In 1995, he returned to attend the funeral of his colleague, Emile Habibi and received a permit to remain in Haifa for four days. Darwish was allowed to settle in Ramallah in 1995, although he said he felt he was living in exile there, and did not consider the West Bank his "private homeland."

Darwish was twice married and divorced. His first wife was the writer Rana Kabbani. In the mid-1980s, he married an Egyptian translator, Hayat Heeni. He had no children. Darwish had a history of heart disease, suffering a heart attack in 1984, followed by two heart operations, in 1984 and 1998.

His final visit to Israel was on 15 July 2007, to attend a poetry recital at Mt. Carmel Auditorium in Haifa, in which he criticized the factional violence between Fatah and Hamas as a "suicide attempt in the streets".
Darwish published over thirty volumes of poetry and eight books of prose. He was editor of Al-Jadid, Al-Fajr, Shu'un Filistiniyya and Al-Karmel (1981). On 1 May 1965 when the young Darwish read his poem “Bitaqat huwiyya” to a crowd in a Nazareth movie house, there was a tumultuous reaction. Within days the poem had spread throughout the country and the Arab world. Published in his second volume "Leaves of Olives" (Haifa 1964), the six stanzas of the poem repeat the cry “Write down: I am an Arab.”
In the 1970s, “Darwish, as a Palestinian poet of the Resistance committed himself to the . . . objective of nurturing the vision of defeat and disaster (after the June War of 1967), so much so that it would ‘gnaw at the hearts’ of the forthcoming generations.”

Palestinian poetry often addresses the Nakba and the resultant tragedies. The mid 1980s saw the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and preceded the outbreak of the first Intifada (uprising) on the West Bank and Gaza Strip in December 1987. Mahmoud Darwish addressed these and other issues in Ward aqall [Fewer Roses] (1986), and more specifically in one poem, “Sa-ya’ti barabira akharun” [Other Barbarians Will Come”].

Darwish's work won numerous awards, and has been published in 20 languages. A central theme in Darwish's poetry is the concept of watan or homeland. The poet Naomi Shihab Nye wrote that Darwish "is the essential breath of the Palestinian people, the eloquent witness of exile and belonging...."

Wow only the Jews can assault a village...LOL. I'd love to know where that summary of his life really emanates from....also if Palestine is a metaphor for loss of Eden, then perhaps Eden is his real Homeland?

 

[José]

Originally posted by rylah
Tell me, how did You think Jews become a minority and Arabs the majority in Palestine?

Since there was no mass immigration to Egypt and Palestine from the beggining of the christian calendar to the 19th century there's only one way to explain it:

The ancient Egyptians went through a process of arabization and conversion to Islam and Christianity.

The ancient Jews and other pagan peoples of the region went through the same process of arabization.

 

[José]

Originally posted by José
The region of Palestine was militarily occupied by the army of a people who took away the right of the native people to govern their homeland, decide whether they wanted to create a state in Palestine ... and preserve the ethnic make up of their land.

Originally posted by Shusha
Good. Now apply that to the Jewish people.

To the ancient, semitic jewish people suffering under the Roman occupation... yes... applied in a heartbeat, without any problems.

To Poles and Ukrainians of jewish faith... hell no!!

This is using a shared religion to legitimize european colonialism, dehumanization and ethnic supremacism.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
It fits the description of the dissolution of retired nations like Yugoslavia and the creation of new States as well. You are okay with Yugoslavia splitting up, right?

The main strategy used by people who try to defend racial dictatorships is precisely the one Shusha is using right now:

Doing everything in their power to hide, to blur, to erase all the differences that separate a racial dictatorship like Israel and any other state in the world...

In this particular example, she's trying to erase the differences between a classic ethnocratic conflict (american settlers x native americans, eastern european settlers x native arabs) and a LEGITIMATE civil war waged between two or more native groups (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, etc...)

 

[José]

Coyote considered her post an olympic winner because, having been born in the US, a society that's almost as zionist as Israel itself, she absorbed, probably at an early age, the foundational myth of the state of Israel according to which the europeans of jewish faith that founded the country had any kind of legitimate claim over a territory located thousands of miles from their european homelands.

If the Poles, Germans and Russians of jewish faith who founded Israel are natives of Palestine it is indeed a civil war between two groups of natives just like in Yugoslavia.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Rocco
You cannot apply concepts of the 21st Century to common practice and understanding at the turn of the 19th Century into the very beginning of the 20th Century.

It is true that imperialism/colonialism were much more socially accepted in 18th, 19th century Europe than today.

But if colonial domination were universally accepted in human history no historian could explain the Jewish Revolt in Palestine against the roman occupation, the Indian Wars in the US and the American Revolution itself....

Your argument that imperialism was more socially accepted in the West 120 years ago than it is now is absolutely true....

As a definitive proof that you are right, we just have to look at the complete lack of shame with which the zionist movement talked openly about the colonization of Palestine to the point of naming their organizations with overt, blatant references to colonialism:

Jewish Colonization Association - Wikipedia

Palestine Jewish Colonization Association - Wikipedia

But let's not forget that the fundamental difference is not the historical period.... but which end of the imperialist cannonball you happen to find yourself at a given moment.

 

[thetor]

Mahmoud Darwish

Mahmoud Darwish (Arabic: محمود درويش‎) (13 March 1941 – 9 August 2008) was a Palestinian poet and author who won numerous awards for his literary output and was regarded as the Palestinian national poet. In his work, Palestine became a metaphor for the loss of Eden, birth and resurrection, and the anguish of dispossession and exile. He has been described as incarnating and reflecting "the tradition of the political poet in Islam, the man of action whose action is poetry".

Mahmoud Darwish was born in the village of al-Birwa in the Western Galilee. He was the second child of Salim and Houreyyah Darwish. His family were landowners. His mother was illiterate, but his grandfather taught him to read. After Israeli forces assaulted his village of al-Birwa in June 1948 the family fled to Lebanon, first to Jezzin and then Damour. The village was then razed and destroyed by the Israeli army to prevent its inhabitants from returning to their homes inside the new Jewish state. A year later, Darwish's family returned to the Acre area, which was now part of Israel, and settled in Deir al-Asad. Darwish attended high school in Kafr Yasif, two kilometers north of Jadeidi. He eventually moved to Haifa.

He published his first book of poetry, Asafir bila ajniha or Wingless Birds, at the age of nineteen. He initially published his poems in Al Jadid, the literary periodical of the Israeli Communist Party, eventually becoming its editor. Later, he was Assistant Editor of Al Fajr, a literary periodical published by the Israeli Workers Party (Mapam). Darwish was impressed by the Arab poets Abed al-Wahab al Bayati and Bader Shaker al-Sayab.
Darwish left Israel in 1970 to study in the USSR. He attended the University of Moscow for one year, before moving to Egypt and Lebanon. When he joined the PLO in 1973, he was banned from reentering Israel. In 1995, he returned to attend the funeral of his colleague, Emile Habibi and received a permit to remain in Haifa for four days. Darwish was allowed to settle in Ramallah in 1995, although he said he felt he was living in exile there, and did not consider the West Bank his "private homeland."

Darwish was twice married and divorced. His first wife was the writer Rana Kabbani. In the mid-1980s, he married an Egyptian translator, Hayat Heeni. He had no children. Darwish had a history of heart disease, suffering a heart attack in 1984, followed by two heart operations, in 1984 and 1998.

His final visit to Israel was on 15 July 2007, to attend a poetry recital at Mt. Carmel Auditorium in Haifa, in which he criticized the factional violence between Fatah and Hamas as a "suicide attempt in the streets".
Darwish published over thirty volumes of poetry and eight books of prose. He was editor of Al-Jadid, Al-Fajr, Shu'un Filistiniyya and Al-Karmel (1981). On 1 May 1965 when the young Darwish read his poem “Bitaqat huwiyya” to a crowd in a Nazareth movie house, there was a tumultuous reaction. Within days the poem had spread throughout the country and the Arab world. Published in his second volume "Leaves of Olives" (Haifa 1964), the six stanzas of the poem repeat the cry “Write down: I am an Arab.”
In the 1970s, “Darwish, as a Palestinian poet of the Resistance committed himself to the . . . objective of nurturing the vision of defeat and disaster (after the June War of 1967), so much so that it would ‘gnaw at the hearts’ of the forthcoming generations.”

Palestinian poetry often addresses the Nakba and the resultant tragedies. The mid 1980s saw the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and preceded the outbreak of the first Intifada (uprising) on the West Bank and Gaza Strip in December 1987. Mahmoud Darwish addressed these and other issues in Ward aqall [Fewer Roses] (1986), and more specifically in one poem, “Sa-ya’ti barabira akharun” [Other Barbarians Will Come”].

Darwish's work won numerous awards, and has been published in 20 languages. A central theme in Darwish's poetry is the concept of watan or homeland. The poet Naomi Shihab Nye wrote that Darwish "is the essential breath of the Palestinian people, the eloquent witness of exile and belonging...."

Wow only the Jews can assault a village...LOL. I'd love to know where that summary of his life really emanates from....also if Palestine is a metaphor for loss of Eden, then perhaps Eden is his real Homeland?

If you knew your Jewish/Zionist history,you would not make such stupid and flippant comment....You need to Grow Up,only Ignorant people speak such unadulterated untrue rubbish,

So back to the Gutter for you,where you truly belong

 

[RoccoR]

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoelT1]

No “palestinian” history for an invented ppl

Ancient Jewish history Gallery: WHC 2015 – Beth She’arim Necropolis - a Landmark of Jewish Revival (Israel)

 

[Sixties Fan]

Readers might be interested to know that the Arabic version of the same Ma'an news organization has the same surreal accounting - innocent fellow, minding his own business, rushing to catch a bus and shot down in cold-blood by "occupation forces" - adding the not-so-inconsequential detail that the Arab was killed. No other report says he was, and it's fairly clear he wasn't.

This would-be killer is someone's son. If we were his parents, we would be busy this moment composing a heart-felt thank you note to the commanding officer of the young, cool-headed Nahal soldier doing guard duty at the Gush Etzion Junction where innumerable Arab-on-Israeli knifing attacks have resulted in deaths on both sides during the past two years. We would be saying thank you for sparing the life of our misguided, brain-washed, irresponsible and undeserving son who will now have the opportunity to either regret or to relive today's events.

That soldier, in the space of the handful of seconds available to him, had the power and the equipment to stop the knife attacker permanently. Instead he stuck to instructions and incapacitated him, leaving the medical professionals to bring the Pal Arab terrorist back to health - and a future.

A future which will now - as of this afternoon - include a guaranteed monthly salary from the terror-fixated Abbas regime and its appalling Rewards for Terror scheme. He's unlikely to ever be able to otherwise earn anything close to what the PA - thanks to unwitting or merely apathetic European and North American taxpayers - is about to start paying him for what he did in the Gush this afternoon.

(full article online)

This Ongoing War: A Blog: 18-Oct-17: The luckiest Arab in the entire Gush

 

[RoccoR]

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

Great Post... But I would offer this one last piece of an observation.

You cannot apply concepts of the 21st Century to common practice and understanding at the turn of the 19th Century into the very beginning of the 20th Century.

As a definitive proof that you are right, we just have to look at the complete lack of shame with which the zionist movement talked openly about the colonization of Palestine to the point of naming their organizations with overt, blatant references to colonialism:

Jewish Colonization Association - Wikipedia

Palestine Jewish Colonization Association - Wikipedia

But let's not forget that the fundamental difference is not the historical period.... but which end of the imperialist cannonball you happen to find yourself at a given moment.

(OBSEVATION)

Definition of colonialization

SOURCE: Merriam-Wester on-line Dictionary.
:the act of colonializing or being colonialized; especially :subjugation by colonial policies

• outcries against colonialization and economic imperialism —Economist

Definition of colonization

SOURCE: Merriam-Wester on-line Dictionary.
:an act or instance of colonizing
​

(COMMENT)

• All acts of colonialism have elements of colonization.

• Not all acts of colonization include colonialization.​

Neither the Mandate nor the Jewish Agency, had any vision of colonial policies. BUT, certainly there were elements of colonization since the very reason for Article 6 of the Mandate instructed The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes; for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

 

[rylah]

Originally posted by rylah
Tell me, how did You think Jews become a minority and Arabs the majority in Palestine?

Since there was no mass immigration to Egypt and Palestine from the beggining of the christian calendar to the 19th century there's only one way to explain it:

The ancient Egyptians went through a process of arabization and conversion to Islam and Christianity.

The ancient Jews and other pagan peoples of the region went through the same process of arabization.

How convenient, I'm sure You imagine that Native Americans became a tiny minority in their homeland, by magically "converting" to British or American. I guess You think they're only 1.6% of the US population because of convenience.

No mass migration?? For Jews, 2000 years of foreign occupation and migration of Arabian tribes, Greeks, Kurds, Bosnians, Egyptians and Greeks into their homeland - looks exactly like mass migration AND ethnic cleansing. Palestine was a hot point for invasion and demographic change, at the times that Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

You have villages and towns in Palestine that are wholly populated by Arabian tribes, each in his village.
And a whole quarter in Jerusalem for Moroccans, named after them...just to name a few.
The majority of Arabs in Palestine identify with either the northern Hejaz/Saudi tribes or southern tribes from Yemen.


If You think the Native Americans became a minority of 1.6% of the population in their homeland, simply by conversion into "British" or "Spanish", then You're just an apologist for ethnic cleansing.
In this case for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland. And let me remind You, team-Palestine still claims that Jews are a minority in Palestine.

Q. Did the Native Americans call their homeland "America" as the the US citizens do?
Q. Did the Kurds call their homeland "Iraq" or "Iran"?
Q. What does the word "Palestine" mean in the language of the place?

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

By all means, insist in putting this link again and again.

1974. After FOUR failed attempts at destroying Israel with military force.
-----------------
In 1974, the UN General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to address the General Assembly during the annual debate on Palestine. Arafat appeared before the UN in fatigue uniform, with his pistol showing. This period, following the Yom Kippur war, marked the ascendancy of the Palestinian in the UN for many years, and culminated in the Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975. On November 22, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions 3326 and 3327, that recognized the cause of Palestinian self-determination and the status of the PLO as representing the Palestinian people, and gave the PLO observer status at the UN.

Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

[By all means, let us not forget how the "Palestinians" were going about attempting to force Israel to cease to exist.

1972 Munich kidnapping and murder of the Israeli team

1973 Yom Kippur war

One could say that after the Yom Kippur war and their loss, is when the Arabs, now calling themselves Palestinians for the past 9 years, decided to switch the way they were going to go about to succeed in destroying Israel.

When military war does not work, the word of mouth may do the trick. Just ask the Russians and any other authoritarian country what they do when they want to get their way, outside of invading another country ]

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

By all means, insist in putting this link again and again.

1974. After FOUR failed attempts at destroying Israel with military force.
-----------------
In 1974, the UN General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to address the General Assembly during the annual debate on Palestine. Arafat appeared before the UN in fatigue uniform, with his pistol showing. This period, following the Yom Kippur war, marked the ascendancy of the Palestinian in the UN for many years, and culminated in the Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975. On November 22, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions 3326 and 3327, that recognized the cause of Palestinian self-determination and the status of the PLO as representing the Palestinian people, and gave the PLO observer status at the UN.

Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

[By all means, let us not forget how the "Palestinians" were going about attempting to force Israel to cease to exist.

1972 Munich kidnapping and murder of the Israeli team

1973 Yom Kippur war

One could say that after the Yom Kippur war and their loss, is when the Arabs, now calling themselves Palestinians for the past 9 years, decided to switch the way they were going to go about to succeed in destroying Israel.

When military war does not work, the word of mouth may do the trick. Just ask the Russians and any other authoritarian country what they do when they want to get their way, outside of invading another country ]

Irrelevant to my post.

 

[RoccoR]

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

The law applies equally to everyone.

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

(COMMENT)

No, you are misrepresenting the covanent; with your own interpretation and application. You are implying that the Arab Palestinians have rights above all other; that they are so special that they have a unique set of rights.

PART I

Article 1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
entry into force 23 March 1976

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

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

Certainly their are some great differences between the opinions; at least in this discussion group. BUT, it is a good question, because it asks us to review what a "Right" is.

"Rights" is the generalized term for an indeterminate entitlements (not to be confused with a grant or benefit) either:

• TO perform → or → NOT to perform certain actions;
• TO be placed in → or → NOT to be placed in a certain condition or status;
• That others perform → or → NOT perform certain actions;
• That others be in → or → NOT be in certain condition or status.​

"Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
SOURCE: First published Mon Dec 19, 2005 - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2015

So, what do we mean when we say:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Within the concepts of a "right," what is:

1. Being directed to perform (or not to perform)?
2. What condition or state is being set (or not set)?
3. Who may, must, or must not to what to who?

Why is it so hard for people to grant rights to other people? Is it personally threatening? Does granting rights of self determination, dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours? Is it a zero sum game?

(THE RUB)

Before we can discuss the 'right of self-determination," we must define what constitutes "self-determination?" dignity and being recognized as a people mean you have less rights for you and yours?

When we talk about the right of self-determination; the Covenant says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. → By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." [See: Article 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 1966 (entered into force in 1976)]

This [and not the UN Charter Article 1(2)] that actually defines the constituent parts of "self-determination:"

• Political Status,
  
• Economic Development,
  
• Social Development,
  
• Cultural Development,

The CCPR even recognizes the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved "if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians consider their "rights" to be be something owed to them and paramount above all others; conveniently forgetting the clause that means if conditions are created whereby both the Palestinian and Israeli may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

It is not that anyone denies rights; but that what they means and how the Palestinians attempt to apply them.

(SIDEBAR)

While there are several unenforceable resolutions that mention these rights, A/RES/49/148 (Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) and A/RES/3236 (the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination), what you think it says, is not necessarily what it means. Neither changes how the Covenant (International Law) treats those rights. This is really a legal argument that is subject to the 1970 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/26/25). And it is in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States that stipulates that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Once the Arab Palestinians, with the support of the Arab League, threatened and then staged force to violate the existing Armistice Lines, the question ceased to be a matter of "rights" but a violation of the Rule of Law.

You may notice that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the CCPR makes any mention of → self-determination, sovereignty or independence in the context as discussed; except as stipulated above.

Most Respectfully,
R

"All peoples have the right of self-determination.

You are conflating or confusing peoples and people. Those are two different categories with two different systems of rights.

People/person/persons have individual rights like the right to life, liberty, etc. without regard to where they are.

Peoples/a people have national/collective rights within a defined territory. (Montevideo requires a defined territory, and peoples have the right to territorial integrity.) The French are "a people" with national rights in France. The British are "a people" with national rights in Britain.

The French have individual rights in Britain, but they do not have national rights there. The British have individual rights in France, but they do not have national rights there.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:...

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

The Palestinians have national rights in Palestine. Others don't.

By all means, insist in putting this link again and again.

1974. After FOUR failed attempts at destroying Israel with military force.
-----------------
In 1974, the UN General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to address the General Assembly during the annual debate on Palestine. Arafat appeared before the UN in fatigue uniform, with his pistol showing. This period, following the Yom Kippur war, marked the ascendancy of the Palestinian in the UN for many years, and culminated in the Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975. On November 22, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions 3326 and 3327, that recognized the cause of Palestinian self-determination and the status of the PLO as representing the Palestinian people, and gave the PLO observer status at the UN.

Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

[By all means, let us not forget how the "Palestinians" were going about attempting to force Israel to cease to exist.

1972 Munich kidnapping and murder of the Israeli team

1973 Yom Kippur war

One could say that after the Yom Kippur war and their loss, is when the Arabs, now calling themselves Palestinians for the past 9 years, decided to switch the way they were going to go about to succeed in destroying Israel.

When military war does not work, the word of mouth may do the trick. Just ask the Russians and any other authoritarian country what they do when they want to get their way, outside of invading another country ]

Irrelevant to my post.

Inconvenient to your post, ne pas?

 

[JoelT1]

Originally posted by rylah
Tell me, how did You think Jews become a minority and Arabs the majority in Palestine?

Since there was no mass immigration to Egypt and Palestine from the beggining of the christian calendar to the 19th century there's only one way to explain it:

The ancient Egyptians went through a process of arabization and conversion to Islam and Christianity.

The ancient Jews and other pagan peoples of the region went through the same process of arabization.

How convenient, I'm sure You imagine that Native Americans became a tiny minority in their homeland, by magically "converting" to British or American. I guess You think they're only 1.6% of the US population because of convenience.

No mass migration?? For Jews, 2000 years of foreign occupation and migration of Arabian tribes, Greeks, Kurds, Bosnians, Egyptians and Greeks into their homeland - looks exactly like mass migration AND ethnic cleansing. Palestine was a hot point for invasion and demographic change, at the times that Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

You have villages and towns in Palestine that are wholly populated by Arabian tribes, each in his village.
And a whole quarter in Jerusalem for Moroccans, named after them...just to name a few.
The majority of Arabs in Palestine identify with either the northern Hejaz/Saudi tribes or southern tribes from Yemen.


If You think the Native Americans became a minority of 1.6% of the population in their homeland, simply by conversion into "British" or "Spanish", then You're just an apologist for ethnic cleansing.
In this case for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland. And let me remind You, team-Palestine still claims that Jews are a minority in Palestine.

Q. Did the Native Americans call their homeland "America" as the the US citizens do?
Q. Did the Kurds call their homeland "Iraq" or "Iran"?
Q. What does the word "Palestine" mean in the language of the place?

Originally posted by rylah
Tell me, how did You think Jews become a minority and Arabs the majority in Palestine?

Since there was no mass immigration to Egypt and Palestine from the beggining of the christian calendar to the 19th century there's only one way to explain it:

The ancient Egyptians went through a process of arabization and conversion to Islam and Christianity.

The ancient Jews and other pagan peoples of the region went through the same process of arabization.

How convenient, I'm sure You imagine that Native Americans became a tiny minority in their homeland, by magically "converting" to British or American. I guess You think they're only 1.6% of the US population because of convenience.

No mass migration?? For Jews, 2000 years of foreign occupation and migration of Arabian tribes, Greeks, Kurds, Bosnians, Egyptians and Greeks into their homeland - looks exactly like mass migration AND ethnic cleansing. Palestine was a hot point for invasion and demographic change, at the times that Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

You have villages and towns in Palestine that are wholly populated by Arabian tribes, each in his village.
And a whole quarter in Jerusalem for Moroccans, named after them...just to name a few.
The majority of Arabs in Palestine identify with either the northern Hejaz/Saudi tribes or southern tribes from Yemen.


If You think the Native Americans became a minority of 1.6% of the population in their homeland, simply by conversion into "British" or "Spanish", then You're just an apologist for ethnic cleansing.
In this case for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland. And let me remind You, team-Palestine still claims that Jews are a minority in Palestine.

Q. Did the Native Americans call their homeland "America" as the the US citizens do?
Q. Did the Kurds call their homeland "Iraq" or "Iran"?
Q. What does the word "Palestine" mean in the language of the place?

Um, Arab palestine? No p in Arabic