Who Are The Palestinians?

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

OUTSTANDING QUESTION! Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

 

[MJB12741]

While we discuss the land issue, let us not forget the indigenous, or native Palestinians of the land, WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

OUTSTANDING QUESTION! Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Good show.

 

[fanger]

"If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous"
Is he claiming your not a real American?

 

[High_Gravity]

The Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

"If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous"
Is he claiming your not a real American?

Who were named as Palestinians by the Romans in the first century, then had the name taken up by arab muslims to use as a profanity. Much the same as you now use the term zionist

 

[TheOldSchool]

Whoever the indigenous people were, I'm sure they'd be thrilled at the ensuing 3,000 years of violence and hatred a few peace loving religions have maintained there.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923

Why did the Jews accept a part of Palestine in 1947 when they received the whole pie 25 years earlier?

You don't make any sense.

To keep the peace and to show they were not as the arab muslims were branding them. If the Jews had lost in 1949 then the whole of Palestine would now be a bloodbath.

Stop thinking like an arrogant greedy muslim and start thinkling like a human being.

 

[Roudy]

Back in the early 1900's an Arab Muslim would be insulted if you called him a Palestinian because it meant JEW.

Palestinians are an invented people circa 1960's. It was their terrorist leader Arafat who Hijacked the name for political purposes

True story.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?

Indignant
at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,

1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?

A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.

But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.


Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process. The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

• Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
• Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

The question (Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?) is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population? And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) (International Bill of Human Rights) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda ("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.").

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

(REFERENCE GROUPS)

Decolonization and Self-Determination

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960​

General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 49/148 23 December 1994​

General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007

United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 66/142 19 December 2011​

(COMMENT)

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People (or as you say: "native inhabitance"), or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​

The ambiguity here is found in the question: When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people. And that is a matter of local legislation. Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?

Indignant
at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,

1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?

A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.

But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.


Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Churchill White Paper 1922 Jewish Virtual Library

 

[fanger]

So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?

The Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.

A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Roudy]

Or maybe we can believe what the Arabs themselves said.

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".
- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".
- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years".


There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -


"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -


“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
-Former PLO terrorist

 

[Roudy]

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

(QUESTION)

Where/when does it say that the (former WWI and WWII enemy population of) Arab Palestinian (indigenous, native, or citizen) has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 (the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected), wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian (former WWI and WWII enemy population) citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

(QUESTION)

Where/when does it say that the (former WWI and WWII enemy population of) Arab Palestinian (indigenous, native, or citizen) has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 (the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected), wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian (former WWI and WWII enemy population) citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R

to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected),​

What successor was selected and who selected it?

 

[Roudy]

Or maybe the Hamas minister himself can tell us:

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process. The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

• Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
• Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

The question (Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?) is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population? And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) (International Bill of Human Rights) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda ("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.").

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

(REFERENCE GROUPS)

Decolonization and Self-Determination

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960​

General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 49/148 23 December 1994​

General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007

United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 66/142 19 December 2011​

(COMMENT)

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People (or as you say: "native inhabitance"), or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​

The ambiguity here is found in the question: When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people. And that is a matter of local legislation. Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for all the links that support my position.

 

[fanger]

The points I raised had a link, yours, none other than one to the zionist memri tv

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews. According to the MEMRI web site: "MEMRI emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."

According to its website, founded in February 1998 by former/current Israeli intelligence officers
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch