About that Gaza flotilla...

[Smoke]

Lastly, I did say he was born in Cairo, i.e. the capital of Egypt, but that does not automatically take away Palestinian citizenship, from what I understand. Plenty of Palestinians are born in Lebanese refugee camps, but are not considered Lebanese (that is a complicated situation, though).

There was not at that time any such thing as Palestinian citizenship, and Arafat didn't grow up in a refugee camp. According to the biography here, Arafat was a citizen of Egypt by birth, though his mother came from a Jerusalem family and he spent four years in Jerusalem with his mother's relatives after his mother died.

 

[dust1n]

Excuse me but one or two or three shopping malls don't make a difference because how Israel is being described it sounds like there is none. It is easy to sit and cry like you have nothing to eat and blame your neighbor while he supplies you heat and energy. There is no starvation in Gaza, no body is dying of hunger, by a damn ticket and fly there see it for your self and then comeback and try to argue with me but I dought you will you are driven by other desires just like Palestinians are driven not by hunger but by hate for Jews.

When I finish my B.A. in Journalism, I would be more than happy to visit, until then:

[youtube]X0T3jMRNwV8[/youtube]
YouTube - Gaza's Reality (Occupation 101 Movie Clip)

Whether or not there is a shopping mall in Gaza should have nothing to do with how Israel is being described, so I don't really know how to make sense of what you are saying.

 

[croak]

There was not at that time any such thing as Palestinian citizenship, and Arafat didn't grow up in a refugee camp. According to the biography here, Arafat was a citizen of Egypt by birth, though his mother came from a Jerusalem family and he spent four years in Jerusalem with his mother's relatives after his mother died.

The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language. This order held until 14 May 1948, when the People's Council, representative of the Yishuv or Jewish Community, declared the creation of the Jewish State of Israel pursuant to the relevant UN resolution.[4]

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was citizenship, clearly. I will admit that I don't know if it was handed down to children born outside; I assume it is detailed in the Palestine Citizenship Order.

On the topic of refugee camps, the point I was trying to make is that people born in the camps in Lebanon are not given Lebanese citizenship. Just because he was born in Egypt does not automatically mean he cannot be Palestinian. As for your last point, Wikipedia agrees with that, except for how he was born an Egyptian citizen, and unless it is written after "Birth of a Son", likewise for the biography. He probably was an Egyptian citizen, considering his parents had moved to pursue a life there and Arafat attended university there. But that has nothing to do with whether he was Palestinian or not.

We're getting way off topic. I hope I clarified some facts and the main discussion can continue. It left off discussing international law and the legality of the blockade.

 

[dust1n]

On the contrary, the fact that the UN has no legislative or judicial authority means that it is not a system "in place to make such declarations."

On the contrary, the system is "in place to make such declarations". seeing how it is in a place and did make a declaration. If one chooses not to follow the declaration because the UN has no army or executive branch to carry out any enforcement doesn't mean it lacks a place to analytically declare its own opinions about world affairs, and that those declarations shouldn't be heavily considered as well as criticized for its shortcomings.

International law is based on a complex collection of international conventions and treaties, which is why it's not always as clear-cut as you make out.

No country is required to follow any treaty as long as they are willing to accept the potential consequences of breaking them, and like any other legislation that the UN works out, it is contingent on an agreement of sovereigns to follow them. Seeing how the US is one the main supporters of the UN, its interests should be in keeping in tact those agreements and legislation which are made out. And seeing how Israel has it's entire existence solely because of UN actions and US support, they should be required to follow those declarations.

 

[Smoke]

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was citizenship, clearly.

See, RF is educational. I stand corrected.

As for your last point, Wikipedia agrees with that, except for how he was born an Egyptian citizen, and unless it is written after "Birth of a Son", likewise for the biography.

Page 27: "As an Egyptian citizen by birth, Arafat had to do military service in Egypt."

 

[croak]

See, RF is educational. I stand corrected.

That's my favourite part of RF. Even if I'm the one proven wrong, at least I've learnt something so I don't continue making the same mistake.

Page 27: "As an Egyptian citizen by birth, Arafat had to do military service in Egypt."

I admit I didn't read 27 pages in.

 

[England my lionheart]

I can find no evidence that she was related to him, and even if she was, that has no bearing on his name, since tribal membership is passed down paternally. As far as being affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, sure, he fought alongside them and had friends who were members: that appears to be the extent of his affiliation. Lastly, I did say he was born in Cairo, i.e. the capital of Egypt, but that does not automatically take away Palestinian citizenship, from what I understand. Plenty of Palestinians are born in Lebanese refugee camps, but are not considered Lebanese (that is a complicated situation, though).

Anything else?

I think the Family relationship is of little importance,the fact that Yasser Arafat was proud to be one of Al Husseini's troops in 1948 who was little better than a Facist,thats why the MBs ideology worked so well with the Nazis.

This is off topic so if you would like to discuss further it would need its own thread

 

[kai]

Sorry, but Hamas and Israel are not currently in an armed struggle and they weren't at the time of the flotilla incident, so the the basis is incorrect for Roche's reasoning, which means the blockade is not legalized by the law provided.

But they are in an armed struggle why do you think they are not?,they only have a ceasefire at the moment (a unilateral Ceasefire by the Israelis i think!) a peace treaty would mean an end to hostilities not a ceasefire.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that Israel would not agree to a long term truce or lift the blockade that it has imposed on Gaza without the freeing of Gilad Shalit, an IDF soldier held captive in Gaza since June 2006.[252][253] Hamas has insisted that Shalit's release be dependent on the release of 1,400 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and be kept separate from ceasefire negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

 

[YmirGF]

It's not an act of self defense, but it certainly isn't an act of aggression, by any definition of the word.

I see there is no point in trying to have a reasoned conversation with you on the subject then. It was CLEARLY and act of aggression... by any definition of the word.

According to Merriam-Webster's:

aggression...

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master (they were attempting to break the blockade).

2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another (given that Israel has created the blockade, any attempt to break that blockade could be correctly viewed as an attack or encroachment on Israeli sovereignty.)


3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration (given that Israel offered to receive the flotilla and pass on the "humanitarian supplies" to the inhabitants of Gaza even this definition would satisfy my claim that the whole incident was a manufactured provocation or act of aggression)

 

[YmirGF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

Oy vey. Now we are using Wikipedia as a proof source? *shivers*

 

[Caladan]

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think this is what Bill meant. I'm pretty sure Bill meant that there was never a Palestinian Arab nationality and citizenship, or in other words a Palestinian nation. being a Palestinian citizens in the article you cited, meant being a subject of the British mandate, which applied to both Jews and Arabs (and Druze, Armenians, Circassians). ie. both Jews and Arabs were 'Palestinians'.
further more, ironically, if you read the article you posted, you will see it reads the following as well:

Palestinian citzenship during the League of Nations Mandate included both Arabs and Jews as well as other ethnic groups that resided in the territory (Druze, Armenians, Circassians, etc). During these decades Jews embraced the term (the Palestine Post, the Palestine Brewery, the Palestine Brigades were all Jewish organizations) while the Arabs generally disdained and distanced themselves from it (arguing that Palestine was a "Zionist Invention").

 

[croak]

I don't think this is what Bill meant. I'm pretty sure Bill meant that there was never a Palestinian Arab nationality and citizenship, or in other words a Palestinian nation. being a Palestinian citizens in the article you cited, meant being a subject of the British mandate, which applied to both Jews and Arabs (and Druze, Armenians, Circassians). ie. both Jews and Arabs were 'Palestinians'.
further more, ironically, if you read the article you posted, you will see it reads the following as well:

I did read that. I don't think nationality should be restricted to an ethnic group, and I agree that nationalities are artificially created. My point was, however, that Palestine as a state did exist at a point in time. Personally, I don't care much for states; I care for the people who have been living in the territory, no matter where they are from. Besides, being Jewish doesn't mean you can't be Palestinian; I don't find a Jewish Palestinian to be an oxymoron.

However, if he was referring specifically to a Palestinian Arab state, then of course, by the article I posted, there is no evidence of such.

 

[Caladan]

I did read that. I don't think nationality should be restricted to an ethnic group, and I agree that nationalities are artificially created. My point was, however, that Palestine as a state did exist at a point in time.

Really? which state was it? under the Turkish control? under the British control?
this geographical location was administrated by foreign powers.

Personally, I don't care much for states; I care for the people who have been living in the territory, no matter where they are from. Besides, being Jewish doesn't mean you can't be Palestinian; I don't find a Jewish Palestinian to be an oxymoron.

At that time it wasn't, the Mandate was called 'The British mandate of Palestine', Palestine being the territory, and evidently it was the Jews who embraced the term 'Palestinian', while the Arabs have rejected it.

 

[croak]

Really? which state was it? under the Turkish control? under the British control?
this geographical location was administrated by foreign powers.
At that time it wasn't, the Mandate was called 'The British mandate of Palestine', Palestine being the territory, and evidently it was the Jews who embraced the term 'Palestinian', while the Arabs have rejected it.

Under Ottoman control, it was clearly considered a territory. Under the British Mandate, I'm not sure. In the Permanent Mandates Commission, Ormsby-Gore says the aim of the Mandate was to allow the territory to become a state. So, clearly, it was not considered a state, but it was intended to be one.

As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.

Mandate for Palestine - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission/LoN 32nd session (18 August 1937)

However, an exerpt from an article says otherwise:

Palestine and Transjordan emerged as modern states; this was in consequence of British war commitments to its allies during the First World War.

JSTOR: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 68-81


Revisiting my choice of the word 'state', I think we can agree that Palestine could be considered a nation, but the position of state is arguable. I'm going off these definitions of nation.

Also, many Arabs may have rejected being called Palestinians, I concede. The reasons could have to do with Pan-Arabism and them identifying with the greater Arab nation, rather than with a label conjured up by Western powers. I haven't studied the history in depth, however, so I can't say one way or the other.

 

[Caladan]

Under Ottoman control, it was clearly considered a territory. Under the British Mandate, I'm not sure. In the Permanent Mandates Commission, Ormsby-Gore says the aim of the Mandate was to allow the territory to become a state. So, clearly, it was not considered a state, but it was intended to be one.

Sorry croak, but let me enlighten you to the fact that Ormsby-Gore intended Palestine to be a nation for the Jewish people..
he said, that this national movement of the Arabs in Palestine true place laid outside Palestine, in the Hijaz.

Also, many Arabs may have rejected being called Palestinians, I concede. The reasons could have to do with Pan-Arabism and them identifying with the greater Arab nation, rather than with a label conjured up by Western powers. I haven't studied the history in depth, however, so I can't say one way or the other.

Well you realize that your thesis actually gives canon power for the 'Zionists' (notice brackets), who say that the 'Palestinians' were never a unique people and always belonged to the greater Arab nations and people around them.

 

[YmirGF]

Well you realize that your thesis actually gives canon power for the 'Zionists' (notice brackets), who say that the 'Palestinians' were never a unique people and always belonged to the greater Arab nations and people around them.

Details, details, details, Dan. Why let facts intrude on an imaginary narrative.

 

[croak]

Sorry croak, but let me enlighten you to the fact that Ormsby-Gore intended Palestine to be a nation for the Jewish people..
he said, that this national movement of the Arabs in Palestine true place laid outside Palestine, in the Hijaz.

Ah, I didn't know that. He didn't specify in the quote. There is still the second article, but like I said, the position of 'state' is arguable.

Well you realize that your thesis actually gives canon power for the 'Zionists' (notice brackets), who say that the 'Palestinians' were never a unique people and always belonged to the greater Arab nations and people around them.

Note I did not say all Arabs agreed with that. Not to mention that the Palestinians are distinct from other Arabs in their dialect, culinary habits, culture, and so on. I don't agree with Pan-Arabism, personally, and I see little similarity between myself as a Lebanese Arab and, say, a Saudi Arab or Jordanian Arab. If the Arabs were all alike, I would have expected pan-Arabism to succeed as an ideology. But it did not.

Also, by brackets, did you mean quotes? I didn't notice any brackets in my post or yours.

 

[Caladan]

Ah, I didn't know that. He didn't specify in the quote. There is still the second article, but like I said, the position of 'state' is arguable.

I don't see anything arguable about it, before the modern state of Israel, the geographical location called 'Palestine' was ruled by foreign powers. the British, the Turks, various Islamic dynasties, the Byzantines, Romans.
the UN resolution was intended to divide Palestine, the geographical location, between the two people, one part for the Jews, and one part for the Arabs.

Note I did not say all Arabs agreed with that. Not to mention that the Palestinians are distinct from other Arabs in their dialect, culinary habits, culture, and so on. I don't agree with Pan-Arabism, personally, and I see little similarity between myself as a Lebanese Arab and, say, a Saudi Arab or Jordanian Arab. If the Arabs were all alike, I would have expected pan-Arabism to succeed as an ideology. But it did not.

Noted, however you will notice that the source you have cited, specifically said that the general Arab population in Palestine rejected the premise of being labeled a 'Palestinian'. while the Jews embraced the term 'Palestinian', and labeled their enterprises as such.. 'Palestine brewery' etc.
I do agree that Pan-Arabism was doomed to fail, as the political forces, the royal dynasties, an emerging governments in the Arab regions have been at odds with each other and often showed animosity to each other.
I also realize that many Arabs consider themselves to be distinct from each other, just like Arab Jews in Israel are distinct from each other.

Also, by brackets, did you mean quotes? I didn't notice any brackets in my post or yours.

Yeap, I did.

 

[croak]

I don't see anything arguable about it, before the modern state of Israel, the geographical location called 'Palestine' was ruled by foreign powers. the British, the Turks, various Islamic dynasties, the Byzantines, Romans.
the UN resolution was intended to divide Palestine, the geographical location, between the two people, one part for the Jews, and one part for the Arabs.

I said arguable because one source I quoted called Palestine and Transjordan "modern states". I wouldn't be the one to argue it, though; I'm fine with the term 'nation'.

Noted, however you will notice that the source you have cited, specifically said that the general Arab population in Palestine rejected the premise of being labeled a 'Palestinian'. while the Jews embraced the term 'Palestinian', and labeled their enterprises as such.. 'Palestine brewery' etc.

I have no idea how they would have measured it, for one. And since I quoted Wikipedia, and I don't see a citation for the paragraph you quoted, it could have been made up, for all I know. I've tried searching for another source, but so far, no luck. I'll start looking again.

I do agree that Pan-Arabism was doomed to fail, as the political forces, the royal dynasties, an emerging governments in the Arab regions have been at odds with each other and often showed animosity to each other.
I also realize that many Arabs consider themselves to be distinct from each other, just like Arab Jews in Israel are distinct from each other.

It's nice to agree on something.

I suppose, if there's anything more to say about this topic, we should create another thread to discuss it. Back to your scheduled programme, "About that Gaza flotilla..."

 

[Caladan]

I said arguable because one source I quoted called Palestine and Transjordan "modern states". I wouldn't be the one to argue it, though; I'm fine with the term 'nation'.

Still, there was never a state or a nation called 'Palestine', never in known history.

I have no idea how they would have measured it, for one. And since I quoted Wikipedia, and I don't see a citation for the paragraph you quoted, it could have been made up, for all I know. I've tried searching for another source, but so far, no luck. I'll start looking again.

It's right there, in the source you have cited: History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's nice to agree on something.

Actually, I'm naturally assuming that we agree on many many things, probably agree more than disagree, since we are living in the same region and understand much of the reality here. its just that both of us make a case in this debate here. I would even go as far as saying we both might not adhere to all of the things we present in the debate.