The Palestineans got a raw deal. [Archive] - Debate Policy

Gunny

06-15-2023, 11:36 AM

^ 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

06-15-2023, 01:28 PM

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

06-15-2023, 01:32 PM

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.

Gunny

06-16-2023, 11:05 AM

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

06-16-2023, 02:26 PM

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

06-16-2023, 02:28 PM

fj1200

06-16-2023, 02:37 PM

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

06-16-2023, 02:57 PM

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

06-16-2023, 07:00 PM

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

06-17-2023, 08:06 AM

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

06-17-2023, 11:30 AM

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 :slap:

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 :rolleyes:

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

06-17-2023, 11:37 AM

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

06-17-2023, 12:02 PM

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

06-17-2023, 02:00 PM

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 (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods9.html)

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.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-17-2023, 02:16 PM

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 (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods9.html)

(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.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
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

06-18-2023, 06:08 PM

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 (http://www.hudok.info/files/1114/3526/0588/Evi-Doc_12_Montevideo.pdf) (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 (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html)) (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

06-19-2023, 03:29 PM

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 (http://www.hudok.info/files/1114/3526/0588/Evi-Doc_12_Montevideo.pdf) (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 (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html)) (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,
RExcellent details.

Gunny

06-20-2023, 06:36 PM

@fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=728) 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?

RoccoR

06-21-2023, 02:58 AM

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 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#CateRigh)
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 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-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 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-68?activeTab=undefined)

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 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9AC284404D38ED2BC1256311002AFD89/30151E36E88B6BCCC12563CD0051BF1D) 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 64 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9AC284404D38ED2BC1256311002AFD89/6DB876FD94A28530C12563CD0051BEF8)and 65 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9AC284404D38ED2BC1256311002AFD89/7CFC01CACB1E32A6C12563CD0051BF0E) 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 have responsibilities 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 (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oslo-ii-annex-i-3#article4))

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-21-2023, 12:40 PM

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

(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.

(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 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-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::

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 have responsibilities 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 (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oslo-ii-annex-i-3#article4))

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

"""The Arab Palestinian agreed to this and now (as Arab Politics demand) refuse to recognize this."""
When dealing with such lying cowardly people any dealings are subject to the whims of their dishonor. --Tyr

icansayit

06-21-2023, 04:09 PM

ANY recognition of Palestinians is just about equal to our Congress, recognizing ANTIFA as a viable, peaceful
organization...and including ANTIFA in any FUNDING by the American people.

For instance. Our Pentagon supplies ANTIFA with missiles to attack Anyone who disagrees with their Terror.

Think about it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-21-2023, 06:34 PM

Gunny

06-22-2023, 10:05 AM

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

(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.

(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 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-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::

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 (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oslo-ii-annex-i-3#article4))

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

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.

RoccoR

06-22-2023, 12:13 PM

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

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
SOURCE: Rights of Man; Common Sense; and other writings / Original Author Paine, Thomas, 1737-1809. Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Editorial matter © Mark Philp 1995, pg 5

... what it means in reality?
(COMMENT)

→ Gunny, I suspect you would have been in very good company had you served with American Leathernecks (1775-Present) during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783). The question has really never been answered; but fended-off with political and legal babel.

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.
(COMMENT)

The government has no "rights" of any kind. But it has been granted authority by the people. And that is where the citizenry has been confused. The general populations, in most nations govern by representatives (in America that would be the beltway snakes, liars, and roaches). And that is a growing problem. Often, what you think they said, is not what you heard.

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.
(COMMENT)

Even that is a difficult question to address. President Mahmoud Abbas, in essence, rules by decree. President Abbas (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahmoud-Abbas) declared a State of Emergency, which nullified the Basic Law - then dismissed the Government. President Abbas has now served 18 years into his 4 year term. He is the Dictator for Life situated in Ramallah. He determines what laws are valid. I know that in Area "C" (Judea and Samaria (https://www.jns.org/the-ongoing-battle-over-illegal-construction-in-judea-and-samaria/)) there are some Arab Local Courts. However, the PA has a system: LINK to PA Legal System (https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/justice_system/).

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

Gunny

06-23-2023, 04:53 PM

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

(COMMENT)

→ Gunny, I suspect you would have been in very good company had you served with American Leathernecks (1775-Present) during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783). The question has really never been answered; but fended-off with political and legal babel.

(COMMENT)

The government has no "rights" of any kind. But it has been granted authority by the people. And that is where the citizenry has been confused. The general populations, in most nations govern by representatives (in America that would be the beltway snakes, liars, and roaches). And that is a growing problem. Often, what you think they said, is not what you heard.

(COMMENT)

Even that is a difficult question to address. President Mahmoud Abbas, in essence, rules by decree. President Abbas (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahmoud-Abbas) declared a State of Emergency, which nullified the Basic Law - then dismissed the Government. President Abbas has now served 18 years into his 4 year term. He is the Dictator for Life situated in Ramallah. He determines what laws are valid. I know that in Area "C" (Judea and Samaria (https://www.jns.org/the-ongoing-battle-over-illegal-construction-in-judea-and-samaria/)) there are some Arab Local Courts. However, the PA has a system: LINK to PA Legal System (https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/justice_system/).

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R

I have not finished reading the contents at the link you provided. Best I can tell, to this point, the PA has screwed itself and the people that support it. In this case, government has most certainly failed its people. It has always been my personal belief that current government cannot serve the people, so it keeps them brainwashed and in a war they believe they need the PA to protect them from. Abbas and his minions are incapable of creating a society not based on a real-or-contrived enemy and war. Unfortunately, the only things the people get educated on are war and government propaganda.

I'm sure I could find worse company than that of Payne or the Continental Marines :)

RoccoR

06-23-2023, 06:29 PM

RE: Arabs and Israelis discuss partnerships for progress.
SUBTOPIC: Why the prolonged low intensity conflict?
gunny, et al,

Yes, there is much to be said about this.

I have not finished reading the contents at the link you provided. Best I can tell, to this point, the PA has screwed itself and the people that support it. In this case, government has most certainly failed its people. It has always been my personal belief that current government cannot serve the people, so it keeps them brainwashed and in a war they believe they need the PA to protect them from. Abbas and his minions are incapable of creating a society not based on a real-or-contrived enemy and war. Unfortunately, the only things the people get educated on are war and government propaganda.

I'm sure I could find worse company than that of Payne or the Continental Marines :)

(COMMENT)
TheNone of the adjacent nations to Israel as long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are contained by the Israelis. Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt see the Israelis tending the problem. None of the adjacent state do not want the spread of the infestation (HoAP) to spill-over into their domain. Each has their own internal security concerns. The HoAP would be another that they don't need.

The adjacent states know that if the West Bank and Gaza Strip merge to for a single nation, they will have a new potential for terrorist violence carried out with the active support of national single national leadership that would use violent non-state actors.

Most Respectfully,
R
https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/

Gunny

06-26-2023, 04:37 PM

Speaking of raw deals. Dick move on the Biden mafia's part. It does underscore one thing I've ranted on for years:

Trump produced Executive Orders by the bushels yet codified very little in law. As did GWB. Both needed a good dose of shaken baby syndrome applied to them until the marbles rattled into some sense. In each case, the follow-on Dem has just torn their EO's, and made sure they got most of their commie crap codified in law. Ironic since the only ones that follow the law are Republican't's.

Further, this screams unstable government to the people of this and every other country. One day we're your ally, but can't guarantee what the next dummy down the line will bring:rolleyes:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-set-to-cease-scientific-tech-cooperation-with-israeli-entities-over-green-line/

fj1200

07-07-2023, 08:08 PM

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.

fj1200

07-07-2023, 08:15 PM

Can of worms :slap:

Most anything in history depends on the selection of a starting date.
...

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.

I don't disagree with those points.

@fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=728) 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?

No question the Jews are the poster children for some raw deals over history. My OP is related to could it have done differently/better/whatever that would have been a more positive outcome. I recognize that the answer could very well be no.

AHZ

07-09-2023, 08:14 AM

I don't disagree with those points.

No question the Jews are the poster children for some raw deals over history. My OP is related to could it have done differently/better/whatever that would have been a more positive outcome. I recognize that the answer could very well be no.

revenge oppression is not the way to deal with oppression.

just like affirmative action racism is not the way to deal with past racial conflict.

Gunny

07-09-2023, 01:23 PM

I don't disagree with those points.

No question the Jews are the poster children for some raw deals over history. My OP is related to could it have done differently/better/whatever that would have been a more positive outcome. I recognize that the answer could very well be no.

Good question. There is no solution as long as Man chooses to worship at the altar of the 7 Deadly Sins. Without them, there is no reason to send Jews anywhere.

fj1200

07-11-2023, 06:59 PM

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.

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.

I'm guessing that the Palestineans just have not had that explained to them in just such a manner. I'm sure the loss of their Natural Rights would be no issue once that happens.

:poke:

Gunny

07-11-2023, 07:14 PM

I'm guessing that the Palestineans just have not had that explained to them in just such a manner. I'm sure the loss of their Natural Rights would be no issue once that happens.

:poke:"Natural rights"? No such thing.

Killing anything different from your tribe from envy, fear or greed comes more to mind. There would be no need to put anyone anywhere.

I am well aware I am speaking ideologically, but that's as close to reality as it gets.

fj1200

07-12-2023, 06:54 AM

"Natural rights"? No such thing.

Killing anything different from your tribe from envy, fear or greed comes more to mind. There would be no need to put anyone anywhere.

I am well aware I am speaking ideologically, but that's as close to reality as it gets.

John Locke spits at your reality. :slap:

But if you're a Palestinean who had his home taken away you might be mad. And your descendants. A raw deal? That's my posit.

AHZ

07-12-2023, 07:46 AM

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.

so might makes right.

it's scary you're allowed to be around firearms, a totalitarian empty vessl like yourself.

and you claim to stand for things.

you're a case study in a person gone wrong.

AHZ

07-12-2023, 07:53 AM

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

07-14-2023, 03:29 PM

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 (https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2a1cf8a3ea4d1f0385256230005affee?OpenDocument)), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" (http://www.mideastweb.org/intanx3.htm#article2) • 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 (https://unsco.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/declaration_of_principles_on_interim_self-government_arrangements.pdf)

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

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.

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 (https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/EG%20IL_790326_Egypt%20and%20Israel%20Treaty%20of% 20Peace.pdf).

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 (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html).

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 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-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 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949) (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 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-68?activeTab=undefined). 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 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights)).

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