The Palestineans got a raw deal.

[Gunny]

UN 1947, modern State of Israel 1948. My reference to the bad deal goes back to the creation of the modern state and how those actions are causing todays problems.

There are arguments for and against it being a "bad idea", just as there are at least half-million nuances/factors to argument.

The UN Resolution brought to fruition the Balfour Agreement. Why? Put on both your anti-Jew cap and your Western/Christian guilt trip cap. The Holocaust would not have happened had we honored the Balfour Agreement in 1924 (speculative, not definitive). We, as the winners, have to fix this to assuage our guilt.

If you say the UN resolution brought on the current problem, I would counter with hatred for a religion and its people - hatred of difference - caused the current problem or Jews would have had no need to be sequestered to their own isolated little patch of ground that at the time was nothing beyond its religious significance. They could live anywhere without being pariahs and/or persecuted.

Most enemies are fabricated by politicians play on fear on hatred. Like ours.

[fj1200]

There are arguments for and against it being a "bad idea", just as there are at least half-million nuances/factors to argument.

The UN Resolution brought to fruition the Balfour Agreement. Why? Put on both your anti-Jew cap and your Western/Christian guilt trip cap. The Holocaust would not have happened had we honored the Balfour Agreement in 1924 (speculative, not definitive). We, as the winners, have to fix this to assuage our guilt.

If you say the UN resolution brought on the current problem, I would counter with hatred for a religion and its people - hatred of difference - caused the current problem or Jews would have had no need to be sequestered to their own isolated little patch of ground that at the time was nothing beyond its religious significance. They could live anywhere without being pariahs and/or persecuted.

Most enemies are fabricated by politicians play on fear on hatred. Like ours.

I started this with the idea that the Palestineans got a raw deal in the beginning with their loss of their particular set of natural rights; life, liberty, property (and yes I know your position on you don't have any rights unless you can defend them). 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? They have zero self determination at present that probably did not need to be and now they are being held hostage by their "leaders" with built-in Israel hatred.

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?

[Kathianne]

I started this with the idea that the Palestineans got a raw deal in the beginning with their loss of their particular set of natural rights; life, liberty, property (and yes I know your position on you don't have any rights unless you can defend them). 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? They have zero self determination at present that probably did not need to be and now they are being held hostage by their "leaders" with built-in Israel hatred.

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?

How many times have they been offered such? I'm certain they can have all, just have to allow for existence of Israel.

[fj1200]

How many times have they been offered such? I'm certain they can have all, just have to allow for existence of Israel.

Many times. The genesis of the raw deal precedes those. Did they, at any point, get a raw deal?

[Kathianne]

Many times. The genesis of the raw deal precedes those. Did they, at any point, get a raw deal?

I would guess not ever having a country might be, but not sure how that justifies modern times.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My bottom line comes down to the many offers to Palestinians to gain land, a state. Always they turn it down and increase the violence. They will not compromise with the existence of Jews. Period.

They seem to want Israel totally destroyed. Such extremism shows the truth of it,imho.
Israel existed as a nation hundreds of years before= the Pali's did not.
That is the truth of it, Tyr

[fj1200]

I would guess not ever having a country might be, but not sure how that justifies modern times.

It doesn't justify modern times but the past is prologue eh?

They seem to want Israel totally destroyed. Such extremism shows the truth of it,imho.
Israel existed as a nation hundreds of years before= the Pali's did not.
That is the truth of it, Tyr

So how far back do you go to decide a nation existed to justify the takings of property of current residents? Two past millenia is greater than current centuries? The population of Palestine was minority Jewish in 1945.

[Gunny]

I started this with the idea that the Palestineans got a raw deal in the beginning with their loss of their particular set of natural rights; life, liberty, property (and yes I know your position on you don't have any rights unless you can defend them). 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? They have zero self determination at present that probably did not need to be and now they are being held hostage by their "leaders" with built-in Israel hatred.

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?

Can of worms

Most anything in history depends on the selection of a starting date. Nowadays, that starting date always appears to back the whiners trying to get something for nothing, regardless/in spite of actual history. Examples: 1619 Project, slavery in the US (as compared to slavery world-wide throughout history). Russia-Ukraine. There's a long, long list.

Palestine was/is a contrived nation used to replace/erase Israel by Rome. Palestinians, originally the filistens (Philistines) did for a time exist in the ancient ME but lost their nation to tribal city states, Israel/Judea being one, but not the only.

One can argue that dispossessing lock, stock and barrel those who occupied the land in 1949 was more than a tad heavy-handed. Without looking, IIRC, the Jews had to fight their way in then hold onto what they had. From that POV, your average Arab that occupied the land certainly got a raw deal. They however made their own bed with their choices. Namely, to follow the second son of a second son with no real skills Egyptian named Yassir Arafat rather than make any attempt to negotiate with the Jewish state. To date, they have thrown their lot in with those who make a living and have gotten rich from a declared war of extermination.

One elephant in the room always overlooked is the fact that when the British Empire claimed the ME, it purposefully carved it up into its current states/countries so that no one group in any one state was large enough to affect British rule. Geological boundaries, ethnicities/cultural/religious difference were all ignored; rather, segregated to meet that desired end. One could easily argue that besides getting the Jews as far away as possible, while returning them to their traditional homeland, it also met the end of cultural division.

There is or has been a dispute/war in almost every area where these divisions exist. India-Pakistan. Iran-Iraq. Iraq-Kuwait. Syria-Lebanon. Turkey and anybody touching what it claims as its stuff

The people themselves are of course pawns. They're stuck between one people who have every bit as much right to exist, and those trying to exterminate them. Let's be real though. No one today was dispossessed of anything. They have had time to relocate and resettle many times over. They have chose to follow their leaders, knowing their intent is the destruction of the Jewish State.

One has to wonder what it is these people think they are going to get out of it. As a people/Nation, what is it any current Palestinian can do? Blow shit up? Kill people? Its government seems to possess the skills of terrorist war. I have seen little to no attempt at peaceful coexistence on the part of Palestine.

Odd how time changes things. The US initially opposed the reformation of Israel. Then, when the underdog kicked all the Arabs' asses at once, we suddenly were all for the underdog. Once the underdog became the big dog, Americans started feeling sorry for the losers, going full circle with the American-haters hating Israel as well . We treat our own people and country the same way. At no point in time during all this fickle crap did who is in the right and who is in the wrong change.

[Gunny]

Many times. The genesis of the raw deal precedes those. Did they, at any point, get a raw deal?

Can apply the question to almost anything, right down to self. I consider current US government a raw deal based on what the US Constitution promises. And we are seeing daily just how much say we have in what the government is doing.

Makes one wonder what promise of reparations they'll never see that the Terrorist Government of Palestine is offering those that follow.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't justify modern times but the past is prologue eh?



So how far back do you go to decide a nation existed to justify the takings of property of current residents? Two past millenia is greater than current centuries? The population of Palestine was minority Jewish in 1945.

FJ, that calls for a moral judgement. The number of years being irrelevant in that regard.
I look at which one is a terrorist entity, The Pali's fit that bill to a certified T.--do they not?

[RoccoR]

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

The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. The Treaty of Lausanne (which replaced the unratified Treaty of Sevres) was 1923.

The UN Resolution brought to fruition the Balfour Agreement. Why? Put on both your anti-Jew cap and your Western/Christian guilt trip cap. The Holocaust would not have happened had we honored the Balfour Agreement in 1924 (speculative, not definitive). ...

(COMMENT)

We do not know the political outcomes if the Treaty of Sevres (1920) had been ratified and adopted, as opposed to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

An important point that the Arab Palestinians seldom recognize is that the territory known as "Palestine" was not mentioned once in the treaty. (Not once!). By the Treaty, "Palestine" was territory included under the Territorial Clauses found in Section 1 of the Treaty - Article 3(1):

"From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921."


In the near Century of Political haggling since the Treaty of Lausanne, many changes to the understanding of what the term "Palestine" means have been made. Prior to 15 MAY 1948, "Palestine was considered a "Legal Entity." It was neither a "state," or a "country." Based on General Assembly Resolution A/RES/43/177 (15 DEC 1982) "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO). Based on the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19.
SOURCE: Official Memorandum, from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (2 DEC 2012).

Most enemies are fabricated by politicians play on fear on hatred. Like ours.

(COMMENT)

In April 1950, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan officially annex the West Bank. The West Bank remained a sovereign Jordanian Territory until 31 July 1988 when King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Between April 1950 and July 1988, the residents of the West Bank were Jordanian Citizens. The only official governing body as of 21 August 1988 was the Israeli Occupation Force.
SOURCE: Period 9, Official Hashemite Kingdom History

UN 1947, modern State of Israel 1948. My reference to the bad deal goes back to the creation of the modern state and how those actions are causing todays problems.

(COMMENT)

It is often heard said that the UN created the Modern State of Israel. That is not accurate. The Provisional Government of Israel declared independence under the Right of Self-Determination. The UN General Assembly has no legal authority to create or disband a nation.


Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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

The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. The Treaty of Lausanne (which replaced the unratified Treaty of Sevres) was 1923.


(COMMENT)

We do not know the political outcomes if the Treaty of Sevres (1920) had been ratified and adopted, as opposed to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

An important point that the Arab Palestinians seldom recognize is that the territory known as "Palestine" was not mentioned once in the treaty. (Not once!). By the Treaty, "Palestine" was territory included under the Territorial Clauses found in Section 1 of the Treaty - Article 3(1):

"From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921."


In the near Century of Political haggling since the Treaty of Lausanne, many changes to the understanding of what the term "Palestine" means have been made. Prior to 15 MAY 1948, "Palestine was considered a "Legal Entity." It was neither a "state," or a "country." Based on General Assembly Resolution A/RES/43/177 (15 DEC 1982) "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO). Based on the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19.
SOURCE: Official Memorandum, from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (2 DEC 2012).


(COMMENT)

In April 1950, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan officially annex the West Bank. The West Bank remained a sovereign Jordanian Territory until 31 July 1988 when King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Between April 1950 and July 1988, the residents of the West Bank were Jordanian Citizens. The only official governing body as of 21 August 1988 was the Israeli Occupation Force.
SOURCE: Period 9, Official Hashemite Kingdom History


(COMMENT)

It is often heard said that the UN created the Modern State of Israel. That is not accurate. The Provisional Government of Israel declared independence under the Right of Self-Determination. The UN General Assembly has no legal authority to create or disband a nation.


Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting information provided by you. Regardless of those details the Pali's have no right to be declared a nation and be given Israel's territory.
Merely wishing something (no matter what fanatism is involved) does not make it right/legal. ---Tyr .

[RoccoR]

RE: Was it a Raw Deal?
SUBTOPIC: Thumbnail View
※→ Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

(OPENING)

The international concept of sovereignty, statehood, and territorial recognitionare all intertwined.

Criteria: Montevideo Convention (1933) Rights and Duties of a State:

◈ It has a defined territory;

◈ It has a capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

◈ It has a permanent population;

◈ It has a government;

Interesting information provided by you. Regardless of those details the Pali's have no right to be declared a nation and be given Israel's territory.
Merely wishing something (no matter what fanatism is involved) does not make it right/legal. ---Tyr .

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not entirely accurate. The Arab Palestinians outside the territorial sovereignty of Israel (State of) have not right to assume control over Israel. However, any citizen factions of within Israel could (theoretically) change the government if they could gain the necessary political control

And, there is a question as to whether or not the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem have such a "right" since the territory was abandon in August 1988. Furthermore, with the exception of Area "A" the Arab Palestinians (Ramallah Government) really does not have a defined territory over which they have sovereign control. And, the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty (1994) (See Article 3) (SOURCE: Jordanian Government Website) specifically outlines the International Boundary between Israel and Jordan:

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY


1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference
to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in (a), on the
mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.


2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised
international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status
of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.


3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory,
territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with
them.

I think that this limits what the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) might have rights over. This Treaty comes AFTER the Oslo I Accord signed by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, DC, on September 13, 1993.

The idea that the HoAP has some special rights or authority over any of the territory west of the Jordan River (with the exception of the Gaza Strip) is simply foolishness. The Gaza Strip is an exception because it was abandon by the Israelis in 2005; left to its own devices.

//s//
Most Respectfully,
R

[Gunny]

RE: Was it a Raw Deal?
SUBTOPIC: Thumbnail View
※→ Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

(OPENING)

The international concept of sovereignty, statehood, and territorial recognitionare all intertwined.

Criteria: Montevideo Convention (1933) Rights and Duties of a State:

◈ It has a defined territory;

◈ It has a capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

◈ It has a permanent population;

◈ It has a government;

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not entirely accurate. The Arab Palestinians outside the territorial sovereignty of Israel (State of) have not right to assume control over Israel. However, any citizen factions of within Israel could (theoretically) change the government if they could gain the necessary political control

And, there is a question as to whether or not the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem have such a "right" since the territory was abandon in August 1988. Furthermore, with the exception of Area "A" the Arab Palestinians (Ramallah Government) really does not have a defined territory over which they have sovereign control. And, the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty (1994) (See Article 3) (SOURCE: Jordanian Government Website) specifically outlines the International Boundary between Israel and Jordan:

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY


1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference
to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in (a), on the
mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.


2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised
international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status
of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.


3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory,
territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with
them.

I think that this limits what the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) might have rights over. This Treaty comes AFTER the Oslo I Accord signed by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, DC, on September 13, 1993.

The idea that the HoAP has some special rights or authority over any of the territory west of the Jordan River (with the exception of the Gaza Strip) is simply foolishness. The Gaza Strip is an exception because it was abandon by the Israelis in 2005; left to its own devices.

//s//
Most Respectfully,
R

Excellent details.

[Gunny]

@fj1200 Let's switch it around. Did the Jews get a raw deal by being offered their own Jewish nation right in the middle of a snae pit where everyone immediately tried to kill them all?

I just got to thinking and I don't recall seeing nor hearing of a single allied country welcoming home dispossessed/deported Jews after the war. No parades. No support groups. Just, what do we do about this now? Perhaps the "benefactors" could have chosen a better place?