The Palestineans got a raw deal.

[Gunny]

^ I feel we all solved a pressing problem of the day by diving deep into the issues that may continue to plague the world. Good job everyone.

The UN did not exist when Israel was recreated. Palestine was a state within the Nation of Transjordan, part of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine as an actual nation never actually existed. Palestinians are Arabs - semites - like all the rest.

The Balfour Agreement in 1924 reestablished the Jewish state. Not out of altruism mind you; rather, out of antisemitism and how far away from us can we get them.

Transjordan was a British mandate following WWI and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. Technically speaking, by the standard of the day rather than revisionism of acts then by standards pretended to be held now, it was Britain's to do with however it saw fit. The Ottomans were on the losing end.

Israel/Judea in fact existed until the Romans erased it from history because they kept rebelling.

I would say Palestine got a damned good deal since Israel occupied all of what is now called Palestine and the PLO had its ass kicked all the way into Syria and Lebanon. They had the right to expect nothing and Israel had every right to give them nothing; which, is what they would have gotten from me.

I see the whole Israel-Palestine conflict as contrived by nobodies making a living from war because they'd otherwise have to get real jobs, based on the usual hatred of difference.

[fj1200]

The UN did not exist when Israel was recreated. Palestine was a state within the Nation of Transjordan, part of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine as an actual nation never actually existed. Palestinians are Arabs - semites - like all the rest.

The Balfour Agreement in 1924 reestablished the Jewish state. Not out of altruism mind you; rather, out of antisemitism and how far away from us can we get them.

Transjordan was a British mandate following WWI and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. Technically speaking, by the standard of the day rather than revisionism of acts then by standards pretended to be held now, it was Britain's to do with however it saw fit. The Ottomans were on the losing end.

Israel/Judea in fact existed until the Romans erased it from history because they kept rebelling.

I would say Palestine got a damned good deal since Israel occupied all of what is now called Palestine and the PLO had its ass kicked all the way into Syria and Lebanon. They had the right to expect nothing and Israel had every right to give them nothing; which, is what they would have gotten from me.

I see the whole Israel-Palestine conflict as contrived by nobodies making a living from war because they'd otherwise have to get real jobs, based on the usual hatred of difference.

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.

[Kathianne]

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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[fj1200]

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?

We make moral judgements all the time. African slaves got a raw deal, American Indians got a raw deal. That doesn't mean that reparations are in order. That doesn't mean that Manhattan is going to be deeded back. Acknowledging a raw deal doesn't necessarily change the current. I don't think the current situation really gets changed in any way to what was.

No. Not all Palestineans belong to a terrorist entity or are terrorists.

[AHZ]

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.

so where are you on illegal settlements that the israeli government won't address.

daniel Boonovitz.

[RoccoR]

SUBTOPIC: Illegal Settlements?
※→ AHZ, Kathianne, Gunny, et al,

(ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS)

Why don't we lay this argument to rest.

IF the argument and legalities as presented by the Arab Palestinians (and the associated Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) was as clear, plain, and simple as they suggest, the damn question would have been put down a half century ago. But that is not the case at all.

The fact of the matter is that the matter of "Illegal Settlements" is undefined in as much as the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to have agreed to Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

If the HoAP want to challenge that, then the internationally agreed upon remedy is outlined in Article V. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

But the HoAP have a policy that Armed Struggle and Open Hostile Resistance.

[quoted="Gunny"]
Just a couple of thoughts. Not questioning what written law is; rather, what it means in reality.

IMO, Rights are an illusion extended by government to the People creating the perception that government has those Rights to give. In reality, the People have those Rights without government and government in fact, only infringes on one's freedoms by drawing parameters around them. The promise being that government will guarantee and protect those Rights. As we can clearly see, government is quite selective in whose Rights/freedoms are afforded its protection.

I make the distinction between rights and freedoms as the former is codified in law while the latter is inherent minus infringement.

I would be interested to see in contrast the official Palestinian legal argument it uses to make its case.[/quote]

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.

so where are you on illegal settlements that the israeli government won't address.

(COMMENT)

As far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, the Israelis abandoned that worthless peace of dirt two decades ago. Although if anyone is interested, the gaze Strip was covered in Article II of the 1974 Egyptian and Israeli Treaty.

As for the West Bank - the International Boundary between Israel and Jordan is covered in Article 3 of the 1994 Peace Treaty between the Hashemite Kingdom and State of Israel.

The HoAP and associates do not understand what the term "sovereignty" means.

‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 563

When did the Arab Palestinians have sovereignty over any territory in the last thousand years?

As far as "Rights" are concerned, no one has taken any "Rights" away from the Palestinians. There are nine 9 International Covenants that address the agreed upon and ratified (having the power of a treaty) Human Rights. Applicable here is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). This is not to be confused with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the principle document applicable is the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) including the Additional Protocols.

The current Arab Palestinian 'v' Israeli Conflict, as driven by the HoAP is based upon the Palestinian belief that they have the "Right" to apply all available means, including armed struggle simply because they claim the the territory from the Jordan River to the MediterraneanSea (or any patrician included). I would like to call your attention to Article 68 of the GCIV. In short, the HoAP who commit criminal act which are solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupying Forces are subject to arrest and prosecution and on conviction - imprisonment or interment.

HoAP found guilty of espionage, sabotage and crime which cause death may be subject to execution.

Every time al Jazzera or one of the social media advocate or try to justify armed struggle, they are in fact in violation of the CCPR (Article 20).



OK, I'm off the Soap Box!
Most Respectfully,
R

[Gunny]

Found this. 20 mins. While not legally applicable, it goes a long way explaining pre-Islamic history on the Arabian Peninsula. The Jewish tribes were as much a part of the tribal life of the Bedouins as anyone else. No mention of "Palestinians", even as a tribe. Best I can tell, there were no real borders beyond natural ones, nor written law.

Where I'm going: Iran has incessantly argued "no foreign blood on Arab land" as its excuse for waging a religious war against another religion. I just gave my punchline away. One, Iranians are not Arabs. They're Persians. Two, this is a shia war against Judaism, and has nothing to do with history, hor "rights". Those Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are exactly that, and nothing more than pawns in a larger, ideological war being waged by the shia. Iran has shia backed militia all over the Arabian Peninsula. Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

IMO, the religion is an excuse. Iran is in a war of conquest against any and everyone. A stated goal, btw.

[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.