The Palestineans got a raw deal.

[RoccoR]

RE: Was it a Raw Deal?
SUBTOPIC: Thumbnail View
※→ fj1200, et al,

loss of their particular set of natural rights; life, liberty, property.

(COMMENT)

The Right to Life, Liberty, and Property Ownership are called "Negative Rights" in many countries (but not all countries). Negative rights are suppose to extend a protection from interference (acts by a government).

"Positive Rights" are given by the government to people.

A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right (Narveson 2001).
Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive. Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights. The (privilege-) right to enter a building, and the (power-) right to enter into a binding agreement, are neither negative nor positive.

SOURCE: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Mon Dec 19, 2005; substantive revision Mon Feb 24, 2020

◈ Were those losses necessary?

◈ Did UN actions lead to those losses?

◈ Did they become merely political pawns because of Israel's Muslim neighbors and their action?

◈ I guess it comes down to can the problems of the past be helpful in a peaceful future for the Middle East and Israel as a whole?

(RESPONSE)


The "Rights" to "Life, Liberty, and Property" are not absolute. Each has limitations. There is no blanket explanation for each of these. It is situationally dependent and can be addressed only on a case-by-case basis.

The UN action (A/RES/181 II) was a recommendation on how to proceed. The adjacent Arab States took unilateral extraterritorial action. The Arab Attack was initiated after the Termination of the British Mandate. This UN General Assembly (GA) Resolution is not law. The GA Resolution without ratification cannot compel any nation to act or create any state.

After the various Armistice Agreements, none of the Arab Aggressors holding an "Occupation" over territory west of the Jordan River made any effort to returned territorial sovereignty to any Arab Provisional Government. In fact, Jordan Annexed the West Bank. Egypt established a Military Governor for the Gaza Strip. This was Prima Facie evidence that (without regard to their explanation about protecting the Arab Population) they planned to take the territory, formerly under mandate, and carve it up for themselves.

As long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), and associated designated terrorist organizations, are supported by the general populations - and teach each successive generation to hate Israel - peace will remain several generations into the future.

(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)

The The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) [Country Status State Party (173)
Signatory (6) No Action (18)] outlines the generally accepted CIVIL and POLITICAL Rights. You have to read it pretty carefully.


One more thought::

Article 68 - Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

Without regard to what the HoAP might say, they have no inherent right to conduct hostile operations against the Israelis:

• within there sovereign territory.

• within any territory where Israel continues to haveresponsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred.

The Arab Palestinian agreed to this and now (as Arab Politics demand) refuse to recognize this. See: Functional jurisdiction in Area C, as detailed in Article IV of Annex III. (Special Provisions concerning Area C)


Most Respectfully,
R