Do Palestinians Have the Right to Resist Occupation?

[SquareMelon]

Following is the Legal back ground behind using the terms "Palestinians" and "occupation" in the title of this thread.

Palestinians:

The international community recognizes the Palestinians as a distinct group of people that either resides in the west Bank/Gaza or reside in other countries as refugees. The Israeli government had recognized the Palestinians and accepted the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as their representative. Israel has been negotiating with the PA (Palestinian Authority) for over 15 years.

The most quoted reference on the Isr/Pali conflict in this site, the UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) referred to "the peoples of Palestine" and stated "Palestine within its present borders, following a transitional period of two years from I September 1947, shall be constituted into an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State.”

"Palestinian citizens, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine, shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident"

"The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all of the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a workable basis for meeting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties."

UNSCOP - 1947

In addition, many UN resolutions have used the term Palestinians to collectively describe the residents of the West Bank/Gaza and the refugees.

Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in 1974 recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people. The resolution also recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 3375, passed by the General Assembly in 1975, recognized the right of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a liberation movement, to represent the Palestinian people in their aspiration for self-determination, in accordance to Resolution 3236.

Occupation;

The UN as well as other international organizations uses the term occupation to describe the status of the west bank and Gaza.

UNSC Resolution 242 asked Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. Even though, the English version does not use "The Occupied" (French version does), it does not call any land "disputed".

Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979;
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

The British Government position:

"The Occupied Territories comprise the West Bank (of the River Jordan), the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Israel occupied these in the 1967 war. Israeli civil law was immediately extended to East Jerusalem, the area of which was expanded from 6 sq.km. to 72 sq.km. by unilaterally extending the municipal boundaries into the West Bank. Israel has claimed Jerusalem as its "eternal and undivided" capital since then. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980.

The British Government, like other EU partners, does not recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem. We consider these territories to be under occupation and that Israel is obliged to administer them under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forcible deportations, detention without trial, destruction of property, denial of access to food, health and education, and settlement by the occupying power of its own civilians in occupied territory.

Israel refuses to acknowledge the Convention's de jure application to any of the Occupied Territories. Israel has, however, said it will comply de facto with the Convention's humanitarian provisions in administering the West Bank and Gaza (but the applicable provisions have never been specified)."

Occupation Laws

Court of Justice Opinion:

In July of 2004, The International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. The Court observed that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The ICRC considers the west bank and Gaza occupied and requires the the Fourth Geneva convention be applied.

 

[SquareMelon]

They are free to behave in whatever manner they choose to act in. If it's "armed resistance" then so be it.

However, if you accept that the Palestinians have a "right" to "resist" via violent means, you are morally and intellectually obligated to accept that they also will suffer consequences for such choices.

And if we look over the last 60 years, Israel took one path, and the Palestinians another. I can't find any rationale line of thought that would conclude the Palestinians have chosen very well. It would appear the suffering, misery and poverty of the Palestinian State/People/whatever is more acceptable of a consequence for their "struggle" than the consequence of accepting Israel and pursuing prosperity and peace. .

Having a Right and using this right is two different things. The purpose of this thread is not to recommend that Palestinians use armed struggle but to explore their rights under international law to at least self defense. Negotiations is the better approach. The problem is not that Palestinians have not accepted Israel, but that Israel is still not ready to allow Palestinians to establish a viable state where both peoples can prosper and live in peace. There is no violence in the west bank directed at Israelis, the PA is negotiating but the refusal of Israel to let go with the settlements is preventing a settlement..

The pain of misery it would seem, is preferable to accepting Israel, and for that I have very little pity for the Palestinian Cause. They must like living that way, must like being in this hole they exist in. It's in their power to change it, and they always choose the... path of least success.

I do not believe Palestinians enjoy living in misery, far from it, they like to enjoy life with their children. 15 years of negotiating had not resulted in much progress. The most they got so far is a "state" that is basically equivalent to an indian reservation in Wisconsin. IMO, if Israel offers to withdraw from the west bank and dismantles settlements that divide the West Bank, there will be peace the next day.

 

[justone]

Usual terrorist propaganda as it has been shown many times, - all fallacious lies, shifted formats and overabundant verbalism.

 

[ludahai]

International laws consider borders of a country to be iron clad, that’s why most of countries have border patrols unless they agree to unite their territories within a common border and have a common border patrol on the new borders. Terrorists as usual do not recognize international laws and want only recognition of their rights to murder without borders.

Amusing coming from someone who supported Russia's criminal actions in Georgia.

 

[Tashah]

Palestinians certainly have the right to resist occupation.

By the same token, Israelis have the right to resist terrorism.

Hamas - Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - Palestine Liberation Front - Palestinian Islamic Jihad; are all designated as terrorist organizations by many nations including the United States.

US Department of State - Office of Counterterrorism: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)

 

[Jakers]

The USA and Canada, and sometimes Australia, are always eager to do Israel's bidding and condemn whoever or whatever they are told to condemn.

 

[donsutherland1]

The USA and Canada, and sometimes Australia, are always eager to do Israel's bidding and condemn whoever or whatever they are told to condemn.

All three countries respond in a fashion that is consistent with how they define their national interest.

 

[gree0232]

Palestinians certainly have the right to resist occupation.

By the same token, Israelis have the right to resist terrorism.

Hamas - Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - Palestine Liberation Front - Palestinian Islamic Jihad; are all designated as terrorist organizations by many nations including the United States.

US Department of State - Office of Counterterrorism: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)

You know, interestingly enough, there was a time when the PLO was also listed as a terrorist group and was sworn to destroy Israel. Seems that access to government as its responsibilities removes terror's rational?

I guess that must be why, according to the latest issue of the Economist, Hamas is making overtures about dropping its 'destruction clause' in return for concrete steps taken toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

[Tashah]

I guess that must be why, according to the latest issue of the Economist, Hamas is making overtures about dropping its 'destruction clause' in return for concrete steps taken toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

Hamas leaders are currently in Cairo discussing long term cease-fire proposals put forth by the Egyptian government.

 

[SquareMelon]

So what specifically under international law grants the Palestinians the Right to resist occupation?

UN article 51 which is frequently quoted grants the right of self defense to sovereign states, it does not grant that right to peoples or groups. According to Article 51, the use of force is limited to self-defense, or, according to Chapter VII, when the United Nations itself embarks on an enforcement action in cases where it decides that there is a threat to peace.

Although, there was not an explicit reference to peoples right to self defense, the the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Right (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

The General Assembly 20th session in 1965, for the first time stated, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence". Further, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in 1974 recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people. The resolution also recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 3375, passed by the General Assembly in 1975, recognized the right of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a liberation movement, to represent the Palestinian people in their aspiration for self-determination, in accordance to Resolution 3236.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.

"which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination'

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

It should be noted that Israel, USA, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran refused to recognize additional Protocol I.

Read more at
The International Law of Armed ... -Page 20

 

[justone]

Amusing coming from someone who supported Russia's criminal actions in Georgia.

Fallicious lies as usual, - the fallacy of loaded question, of straw man, of apples and oranges, - all in one sentence.

 

[justone]

Interesting 2 resolutions. Of course they have nothing to do to colonization etc, but it is interesting to know that in spite of all logic and justice the UN recognize Palestinians as a separate nation with no legal basic for it. Let it be so, as I said laws of morality do not mind. Yet it is not accurate to talk about occupation, as there is no determined territory. On has except that the territories would be the ones occupied by 26 years old {what an absurd of the UN} nation of Palestinians. Israel thus shouldn’t occupy the trritories, unless
1. It is authorized by other resolutions; don1 may have time to search about the status of Israel in connection with the 2 resolutions.
2. Palestinians fire a rocket on Israel. If Palestinians fire a rocket on Israel, Israel has the full right to consider it as an act of war and occupy the territories and conduct war as all wars are conducted. As the terrorist organization is appointed by the UN to represent Palestinian nation Israel has a full right to conduct war as usual, against a nation. No Palestinian may be granted an immunity without a specific request and surrender because the UN says very clearly that actions of terrorists represent actions of Palestinians.

 

[ludahai]

Fallicious lies as usual, - the fallacy of loaded question, of straw man, of apples and oranges, - all in one sentence.

And not one word addressing the fact that your statements are hypocritical. :rofl

You are good entertainment.

 

[donsutherland1]

The General Assembly 20th session in 1965, for the first time stated, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence". Further, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

It should be noted that when the General Assembly adopted Res. 2131, the focus of the debate was on territories under Portuguese administration (New York Times, December 22, 1965). It also reaffirmed General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960). Although some have taken the stance that the resolutions apply to the Palestinian people, the UN's original intent was far narrower. In fact, at the time those resolutions were adopted, there were no outstanding claims that the Palestinian people were living under "colonial rule."

Broad principles of self-determination do apply as set forth in the UN Charter. The idea that the UN granted license to what in effect would be a "right" to violence is far from conclusive. Certainly, Palestinians fell outside the parameters of those to whom Resolutions 1514 and 2131 were addressed. That the final boundaries between Israel and its neighbors were never established--the 1949 armistice lines were temporary--one cannot even assert that there is a "right" to violence beyond those demarcation lines.

Ultimately, the dispute will need to be settled diplomatically. Negotiations, not violence, offer the best chance that the parties will achieve an optimal solution.

 

[justone]

And not one word addressing the fact that your statements are hypocritical. :rofl

You are good entertainment.

Fallicious lies are not facts, one only has to point that a loaded question + apples and oranges are logical fallacies, those who understands logic can see.

 

[justone]

It should be noted that when the General Assembly adopted Res. 2131, the focus of the debate was on territories under Portuguese administration (New York Times, December 22, 1965). It also reaffirmed General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960). Although some have taken the stance that the resolutions apply to the Palestinian people, the UN's original intent was far narrower. In fact, at the time those resolutions were adopted, there were no outstanding claims that the Palestinian people were living under "colonial rule."

Broad principles of self-determination do apply as set forth in the UN Charter. The idea that the UN granted license to what in effect would be a "right" to violence is far from conclusive. Certainly, Palestinians fell outside the parameters of those to whom Resolutions 1514 and 2131 were addressed. That the final boundaries between Israel and its neighbors were never established--the 1949 armistice lines were temporary--one cannot even assert that there is a "right" to violence beyond those demarcation lines.

Ultimately, the dispute will need to be settled diplomatically. Negotiations, not violence, offer the best chance that the parties will achieve an optimal solution.

I was going to post a sentence asking you to do search - I scratched it - you did. Iwas going to ask also to search what was the role of israel in relation to those resoultions.

With all said. There is only one possibility of diplomatic settlement - Palestinians have to recognize Israel rights to exist
As well they cannot make territories not occupied by them De Facto and lost during their aggressive wars against Israel as a condition for such recognition.

However long you can search laws and resolutions however are any other confessions you can make, - this will not happen, - extermination of Israel is the base, the reason, the bone of the ''Palestinian nation''
.

The only way to break the bone is the military way. This should be done by those who think that they are the international community and the civilized world. They are not a community, not civilized, they will not act in interests of justice, moral and law, - and they will not let Israel to do.

 

[gree0232]

"However long you can search laws and resolutions however are any other confessions you can make, - this will not happen, - extermination of Israel is the base, the reason, the bone of the ''Palestinian nation''"

Please find me anything that says the basis of Palestinian existance is the death of Israel. Bear in mind, that wanting to destroy Israel because it is denying your people justice, equality, and a homeland, are different tham simply stating, "Well, lets go eliminate a country that just ahppens to be much more powerful then we are and that we are incapable of destroying."

Funny thing is, the PLO was equally committed to the 'destrution of Israel' at one point, and now seems content to negotiate toward the creation of a Palestinian state (provided there is actual head way).

Hamas has also stated that it will drop its clause of 'Isareli destruction' in return for concrete steps toward the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

So, in practice, it would seem that these groups are not fighting to 'destroy Isarel' , but rather to create a Palestinian State.

If you don't think the 1967 borders, or some close approximation thereof, is a viable settlement, what would you propose? That Palestinians simply accept their status as Muslims in an Jewish state? That they confine themselves to dead end jobs while being shunned away from positions of responsibility that would allow them to take care of their families and achieve some modicum of prosperity?

Israel made a serious attempt to hold onto both Gaza and the West bank, and the result was the Intifada. Is Israel prepared for perpetual insurrection to maintain their current borders which strangely consist of occupied territory that has never been, and never will be, officially annexed?

 

[SquareMelon]

It should be noted that when the General Assembly adopted Res. 2131, the focus of the debate was on territories under Portuguese administration (New York Times, December 22, 1965). It also reaffirmed General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960).

Some UN resolutions deal with specific issues, others deal with general principles that apply universally. My post dealt with resolutions that grants "Peoples" opposed to "states" the right to self determination. In that context, resolution 2131 was referenced. The text of Resolution 2131 and 1514 do not specifically point out that it only applies to the Portuguese colonies. No reference at all to Portagual can be found the resolution texts. To the contrary, it sets universal principles.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131(XX)

1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.

2. No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, Finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.

3. The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.

4. The strict observance of these obligations is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security.

5. Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

6. All States shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Consequently, all States shall contribute to the complete elimination of racial discrimination and colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.

7. For the purpose of the present Declaration, the term "State" covers both individual States and groups of States.

8. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as affecting in any manner the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, in particular those contained in Chapters VI, VII and VIII.

UN Resolution 1514 (XV)

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non- interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

Although some have taken the stance that the resolutions apply to the Palestinian people, the UN's original intent was far narrower. In fact, at the time those resolutions were adopted, there were no outstanding claims that the Palestinian people were living under "colonial rule.".

It was precisely due to arguments like this and other arguements that is designed to confuse issues and deny Palestinians any rights that the UN reaffirmed its stance on Resolution 2131 and resolution 1514 by issuing 2 more resolutions that specifically mentioned the Palestinians.

Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in 1974 recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people. The resolution also recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 3375, passed by the General Assembly in 1975, recognized the right of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a liberation movement, to represent the Palestinian people in their aspiration for self-determination, in accordance to Resolution 3236.

Broad principles of self-determination do apply as set forth in the UN Charter. The idea that the UN granted license to what in effect would be a "right" to violence is far from conclusive. Certainly, Palestinians fell outside the parameters of those to whom Resolutions 1514 and 2131 were addressed.

As demonstrated above, and upon detailed examinations of the text quoted and the introductions to the resolutions cited in the links, Resolutions 1514 and 2131 clearly apply tp peoples and states. They support the rights of people to defend themselves and exercise self determination which is collectively is refered to as Resist the Israeli occupation and colonization (settlements) of the Palestinian territories.

That the final boundaries between Israel and its neighbors were never established--the 1949 armistice lines were temporary--one cannot even assert that there is a "right" to violence beyond those demarcation lines.

Ultimately, the dispute will need to be settled diplomatically. Negotiations, not violence, offer the best chance that the parties will achieve an optimal solution.

While I agree that negotiations offer the best chance for achieving a solution, Resistance by all means is legally permissible as a last resort under international law. The west bank and Gaza are totally located within the palestinian land as per the partition plan that Israel was created based on. In fact, it constitutes less than half the land allocated for Palestinians. 22% opposed to 46% as per the partition plan.

Eventhough the 1949 armistice lines were not final and could have benefited from adjustment on both sides of the borders, establishing and building settlements deep inside the west bank is not the proper way to adjust them. That simply is a colonization and a clear attempt of land grab.

 

[donsutherland1]

Some UN resolutions deal with specific issues, others deal with general principles that apply universally.

In 1965, the PLO had been newly established. Its mission was to eliminate Israel. The West Bank was under Jordan's rule. The Gaza Strip was under Egypt's rule. Both those areas were non-issues.

The text of Resolution 2131 and 1514 do not specifically point out that it only applies to the Portuguese colonies. No reference at all to Portagual can be found the resolution texts.

General principles were set forth even as the debate concerned narrower issues. That was the case with Res.1514 (mainly African colonies) and Res. 2131 (which arose during unrest in Portuguese territories). Some newspapers from the time e.g., The New York Times mention that the UN General Assembly was addressing issues concerning the Portuguese territories. None mention that it was dealing with a Palestinian issue.

Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in 1974 recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people. The resolution also recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 3375, passed by the General Assembly in 1975, recognized the right of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a liberation movement, to represent the Palestinian people in their aspiration for self-determination, in accordance to Resolution 3236.

Neither resolution provided a "right" to violence. In fact, UNGA Res. 3326 recognizes that Palestinian people may pursue their rights by "all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" and in UNGA Res. 3376, there is language that states that they may pursue the "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations." Articles I and II emphasize the UN's emphasis on "peaceful means."

 

[SquareMelon]

General principles were set forth even as the debate concerned narrower issues. That was the case with Res.1514 (mainly African colonies) and Res. 2131 (which arose during unrest in Portuguese territories). Some newspapers from the time e.g., The New York Times mention that the UN General Assembly was addressing issues concerning the Portuguese territories. None mention that it was dealing with a Palestinian issue.

Resolutions 2131 and 1514 set the principles, it is irrelevant what triggered the passing of these resolutions. Haad it been important to consider them "narrow" then, restrictions about their applicability would have been included in the text, none was.

Neither resolution provided a "right" to violence. In fact, UNGA Res. 3326 recognizes that Palestinian people may pursue their rights by "all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" and in UNGA Res. 3376, there is language that states that they may pursue the "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations." Articles I and II emphasize the UN's emphasis on "peaceful means."

The right of self defense is in the charter of the UN. If Israel has a right to it then Palestinians have the same right. For reference, test of the resolutions;

A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974

General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine,

Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,1/

Having also heard other statements made during the debate,

Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved and recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.

A/RES/3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of that resolution,1/

Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved,

Recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 3236 (XXIX);

2. Expresses its grave concern that no progress has been achieved towards:

(a) The exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine, including the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to national independence and sovereignty;

(b) The exercise by Palestinians of their inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted;

3. Decides to establish a Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People composed of twenty member States to be appointed by the General Assembly at the current session;

4. Requests the Committee to consider and recommend to the General Assembly a programme of implementation, designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), and to take into account, in the formulation of its recommendations for the implementation of that programme, all the powers conferred by the Charter upon the principal organs of the United Nations;

5. Authorizes the Committee, in the fulfilment of its mandate, to establish contact with, and to receive and consider suggestions and proposals from, any State and intergovernmental regional organization and the Palestine Liberation Organization;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks;

7. Requests the Committee to submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary-General no later than 1 June 1976 and requests the Secretary-General to transmit the report to the Security Council;

8. Requests the Security Council to consider, as soon as possible after 1 June 1976, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of the inalienable rights recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 3236 (XXIX);

9. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Committee of the action taken by the Security Council in accordance with paragraph 8 above;

10. Authorizes the Committee, taking into consideration the action taken by the Security Council, to submit to the General Assembly, at its thirty-first session, a report containing its observations and recommendations;

11. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirty-first session.

 

[gree0232]

"In 1965, the PLO had been newly established. Its mission was to eliminate Israel. The West Bank was under Jordan's rule. The Gaza Strip was under Egypt's rule. Both those areas were non-issues."

Lets be accurate in our context here. Prior to 1967, most of the Arab world thought they could defeat Israel militarily. In hindsight, they obviously could not. Because they cannot defeat Israel military, most Arab government have seen fit to acknowledge that and have negotiated some form of settlement with Israel.

No such opportunity was offered the PLO. Palestinians are not citizens of any other country, nor are they citizens of the country that is currently occupying their country. The areas once 'controlled' by Egypt and Jordan are no longer claimed by either country who have, quite unlike Israel, acknowledged that they are, at best, no longer governable by a foreign power.

So, you are inside the borders of Israel, but are not a citizen with no right to participate in the political process. You are confined to ghettos and your economic good will depends on a state that views the dead end jobs given to non-citizens as good enough.

Such conditions inevitably lead to unrest. As the non-citizens happen to have a distinct culture and identity, is there really any doubt, just like Israeli's at one point, that there is now a desire to establish their own home and go their own way?

Let's also be very clear, there were no UN resolutions guiding pricipals of resistance when we fought our own insurrection against the British. Justice is not defined solely by jurisprudence. The very ideas of jurisprudence is that there is a legal mechanism to seek redress for injustices. Is there a system that Palestinians can use that will establish their homeland without resorting to violence?

There is such a concept once penned called inalienable rights.

Three that pop into mind: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It would seem to me that Palestine is currently denied at least two of those.

 

[justone]

Good reading, don. I skimmed over the articles and left…. mislead. I am not such a scholar of articles as you know and do not have time to dig …

Good job, don, as usual. What would DP do without you I don't know - it would be overrun by roten water melons...

 

[justone]

"However long you can search laws and resolutions however are any other confessions you can make, - this will not happen, - extermination of Israel is the base, the reason, the bone of the ''Palestinian nation''"

Please find me anything that says the basis of Palestinian existance is the death of Israel. Bear in mind, that wanting to destroy Israel because it is denying your people justice, equality, and a homeland, are different tham simply stating, "Well, lets go eliminate a country that just ahppens to be much more powerful then we are and that we are incapable of destroying."

Funny thing is, the PLO was equally committed to the 'destrution of Israel' at one point, and now seems content to negotiate toward the creation of a Palestinian state (provided there is actual head way).

Hamas has also stated that it will drop its clause of 'Isareli destruction' in return for concrete steps toward the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

So, in practice, it would seem that these groups are not fighting to 'destroy Isarel' , but rather to create a Palestinian State.

If you don't think the 1967 borders, or some close approximation thereof, is a viable settlement, what would you propose? That Palestinians simply accept their status as Muslims in an Jewish state? That they confine themselves to dead end jobs while being shunned away from positions of responsibility that would allow them to take care of their families and achieve some modicum of prosperity?

Israel made a serious attempt to hold onto both Gaza and the West bank, and the result was the Intifada. Is Israel prepared for perpetual insurrection to maintain their current borders which strangely consist of occupied territory that has never been, and never will be, officially annexed?

Why do I have bear in mind that ‘’that wanting to destroy Israel because it is denying your people justice, equality, and a homeland, are different tham simply stating, "Well, lets go eliminate a country that just ahppens to be much more powerful then we are and that we are incapable of destroying."?

My mind is not going to be crapped with all terrorist propaganda – explaining by means of fallacies lies WHY the Palestinian nation wants exterminate Israel.

You can keep demonstrating how terrorist mind is working, for me it is enough that I already pointed how your mind is working.

The fact is – However long you can search laws and resolutions however are any other confessions you can make, - this [ peaceful settlement] will not happen, - extermination of Israel is the base, the reason, the bone of the ''Palestinian nation’’.

That’s all.

 

[donsutherland1]

Prior to 1967, most of the Arab world thought they could defeat Israel militarily. In hindsight, they obviously could not. Because they cannot defeat Israel military, most Arab government have seen fit to acknowledge that and have negotiated some form of settlement with Israel.

No such opportunity was offered the PLO. Palestinians are not citizens of any other country, nor are they citizens of the country that is currently occupying their country. The areas once 'controlled' by Egypt and Jordan are no longer claimed by either country who have, quite unlike Israel, acknowledged that they are, at best, no longer governable by a foreign power.

Gree0232,

Nowhere did I suggest otherwise.

My point is that one should not be using contemporary situations to cast a revisionist interpretation on UN resolutions that were adopted under very different circumstances. The only common thread is that the UN recognizes--and rightly so--that the Palestinian people enjoy the same inherent rights that are understood to be enjoyed by all peoples. It also allows the Palestinian people the freedom to seek fulfillment of those rights consistent with the parameters set forth in the UN Charter.

The earlier resolutions do not create a "right" of violence in pursuit of self-determination. The revisionist argument that alleges that the UN carved such a "right" in its earlier resolutions has no basis in fact. At the same time, it would constitute a violation of the fundamental principles set forth in the UN Charter. Worse, it does the Palestinians no favor as it serves only to create an incentive for a path that very likely will not lead to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The very ideas of jurisprudence is that there is a legal mechanism to seek redress for injustices. Is there a system that Palestinians can use that will establish their homeland without resorting to violence?

Under the framework of the UN Charter, various UN resolutions, and various agreements reached in the Middle East peace process, the appropriate legal mechanism is a negotiating process. In my view, it is that framework that needs to be strengthened and the emphasis should be placed on doing so. The UN can play a role in helping guide the parties toward a compromise in which the core needs of each side are met. It can encourage pragmatic tradeoffs. It can help the parties move along a gradual but steady path toward settlement. It should refrain from rhetoric that can only inflame passions and erect barriers to diplomatic progress.

In 2000, it should have lent its weight to President Clinton's bridging proposal by affirming that the proposal was consistent with the UN's resolutions and that it offered a realistic framework for a final settlement. It didn't. In the future, should a similar opportunity present itself, the UN should play a constructive role in pushing the parties toward agreement.

On the other hand, if violence is the path that is selected, power alone will determine the relationship between the parties. I believe such a situation would lead to an outcome that is inferior, and probably far inferior in the long-run, to that which is possible from a negotiated settlement. Diplomacy offers the most promising approach toward resolving the historic dispute and a negotiated agreement would provide the most mutually advantageous terms for the parties.

 

[gree0232]

"The fact is – However long you can search laws and resolutions however are any other confessions you can make, - this [ peaceful settlement] will not happen, - extermination of Israel is the base, the reason, the bone of the ''Palestinian nation’’.

That’s all."

Justone, you are aware that there is Hamas and the PLO, and then there are these people that are simply Palestinian. These people are a distinct and unnique culture with their own history and tranditions. Some of these Palestinians live in the US, and you probably see them in malls or schools or watching movies.

Not all, and indeed very few, are actually terrorists. Most Palestinians simply want a good life for themselves and their children.

You do understand this?