Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

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

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

 

[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?

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

Exactly to the point.

Talking about foreign mass migration... barely any Arab in Palestine, if at all, can pronounce the 1st letter of his supposed fictional homeland - the letter "P".
Take any Jew who came from an Arab country, and he can pronounce BOTH "Palestine" and "Israel".

"Palestinians" in a nutshell.

 

[rylah]

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.

Wait a second...

What about Palestinian Jews??

 

[JoelT1]

Who are the palestinians? Watch

 

[RoccoR]

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

I'm sorry.

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

(COMMENT)

I got the impression that you thought I had it wrong.

v/r
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

[Hamas recognizes that Israel exists. But just wants to wipe it out ]

Hamas chief: We won’t discuss recognizing Israel, only wiping it out

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

I'm sorry.

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

(COMMENT)

I got the impression that you thought I had it wrong.

v/r
R

The issue with Tinmore is that he does not recognize the Jews as being native to the land, only the Arabs.

Jews are European, as the Arabs have been circulating since 1964, and have absolutely no right to any part of the Mandate for Palestine.

He often states that Israel does not exist. Only Palestine.
(He chooses who the Palestinians are. No mention of TransJordan. Of the Hashemite clan which now holds that area as they are not considered Palestinians)

 

[JoelT1]

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

I'm sorry.

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

(COMMENT)

I got the impression that you thought I had it wrong.

v/r
R

The issue with Tinmore is that he does not recognize the Jews as being native to the land, only the Arabs.

Jews are European, as the Arabs have been circulating since 1964, and have absolutely no right to any part of the Mandate for Palestine.

He often states that Israel does not exist. Only Palestine.
(He chooses who the Palestinians are. No mention of TransJordan. Of the Hashemite clan which now holds that area as they are not considered Palestinians)

Israel is attested to in the ancient sources. Palestine never existed. Watch

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mass murderers honored at Palestinian University

New students at Al-Quds University
taught that terrorist murderers are heroes

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Oct. 15, 2017]

• Main banner at reception for new students featured photos of terror leaders responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of Israeli civilians

(From left to right on banner)

• • Abu Ali Mustafa, head of PLFP
  • Fathi Shaqaqi, founder of Islamic Jihad
  • Ahmad Yassin, founder of Hamas
  • Yasser Arafat, former PLO, Fatah and PA Chairman
  • Salah Khalaf, head of Black September
  • Abu Jihad, head of the PLO terror organization's military wing
    
• Senior Fatah official Jamal Muhaisen spoke at reception

(full article online)

Mass murderers honored at Palestinian University - PMW Bulletins

 

[JoelT1]

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

I'm sorry.

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

(COMMENT)

I got the impression that you thought I had it wrong.

v/r
R

The issue with Tinmore is that he does not recognize the Jews as being native to the land, only the Arabs.

Jews are European, as the Arabs have been circulating since 1964, and have absolutely no right to any part of the Mandate for Palestine.

He often states that Israel does not exist. Only Palestine.
(He chooses who the Palestinians are. No mention of TransJordan. Of the Hashemite clan which now holds that area as they are not considered Palestinians)

Which ancient People wrote the Bible, in Israel? Watch

The Hebrew Bible | The Story of the Jews | PBS

 

[JoelT1]

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

I'm sorry.

That is correct. That does not refute my post at all.

(COMMENT)

I got the impression that you thought I had it wrong.

v/r
R

The issue with Tinmore is that he does not recognize the Jews as being native to the land, only the Arabs.

Jews are European, as the Arabs have been circulating since 1964, and have absolutely no right to any part of the Mandate for Palestine.

He often states that Israel does not exist. Only Palestine.
(He chooses who the Palestinians are. No mention of TransJordan. Of the Hashemite clan which now holds that area as they are not considered Palestinians)

Which ancient People wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? Watch

Dead Sea Scrolls – Cultural Institute

 

[Sixties Fan]

Pictures posted on the Facebook page of the Fatah Movement – Bethlehem Branch

The pictures show diaries distributed by the Bethlehem Branch of the Fatah youth movement Shabiba to all of the schools in the Bethlehem district. On the front cover of the diaries is a photo of Yasser Arafat together with the logos of Fatah and the PLO which include the PA map of “Palestine” that presents all of Israel as “Palestine” together with the PA areas.

On the back cover is a photo of Abu Jihad, arch-terrorist responsible for the murder of 125 Israelis and a photo of Salah Khalaf, who was the head of the terror organization Black September, a secret branch of Fatah. Attacks Salah Khalaf planned included the murder of the 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

(full article online)

Fatah youth movement distributes diaries with images of terrorist "Martyrs" Abu Jihad and Salah Khalaf on covers to high schoolers - PA and Fatah social media|PMW

 

[Shusha]

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 ....

So, theoretically, if we found any of those ancient, semitic, Jewish people or their descendants you would wholeheartedly grant them self-determination on their ancestral and historical lands? How would you know if you found them?

They would obviously be different than the Jewish people in Poland and the Ukraine. Because you've eliminated Polish and Ukrainian Jews from that group.

How would be able to tell if a Jewish person was a descendant of a "real" Jew or a synthetic Jew?

 

[Shusha]

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

This is using a shared religion to legitimize ... colonialism ...

Okay, so no Jews who lived in Poland. No Jews who lived in the Ukraine.

What about Jews who lived in Spain? Yes or no and why?

What about Jews who lived in the Arab countries? Yes or no and why?

What about Jews who lived in the African countries? Yes or no and why?

What about Jews who lived in the territory, such as Jerusalem? Yes or no and why?

 

[Shusha]

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...)

On the contrary, the Palestinians and those on their team do everything in their power to hide, blur and erase the undeniable connection of the Jewish people (all of them) and their ancestral and historical homeland. The Jewish people (all of them) believe they are returning home. Which makes it very distinctly NOT like the European settlers to the Americas where there is no such connection. And makes it very much a LEGITIMATE civil war waged between two or more native groups.

 

[Shusha]

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

Both the Jewish people and the Arab "Palestinian" people have national rights in Palestine.

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that 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.

Wait a second...

What about Palestinian Jews??

They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

 

[Shusha]

Mahmoud Darwish

Mahmoud Darwish was born in the village of al-Birwa in the Western Galilee. 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.

I'm just going to add to this that the village was a place of heavy fighting and resistance which went on for some time.

 

[Coyote]

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

Thst is really informative, and puts it in a way I had not thought of. I will argue though that in regards to rights and self determination many on this board do not think they should be extended to Palestinians simply because they are Arabs or fake people.

 

[JoelT1]

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

Thst is really informative, and puts it in a way I had not thought of. I will argue though that in regards to rights and self determination many on this board do not think they should be extended to Palestinians simply because they are Arabs or fake people.

Common “palestinian” surnames: al-Masri “the Egyptian, al-Iraqi, Maghrebi (North Africa)

No self-determination?