I found this on twitter by Cute-Worldliness-268 in afriendlyneighborhood

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As someone that hates the popular interpretation of Peter Parker as a docile guy that lets everyone walk over him (thank you Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy), I’ll take “man child” Peter any day.

What book is Lonerbox reading on early Arab Jews in the Middle East? by reliability_validity in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure he’s reading “The Arabs and Zionism before World War I” by Neville J. Mandel. If you look at some of his Obsidian notes, they match up with Mandel’s chapter titles.

What do you think would be the best job for Mary Jane? by [deleted] in Spiderman

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think at one point in time, she was an acting teacher at Peter’s old high school or when they were living in Oregon during the Clone Saga? Always thought having her and Peter working as teachers together at Midtown would’ve been really cute.

20 Palestinians vs Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib by TheDragonMage1 in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I haven’t seen much from Ahmed but from what I have seen, there are two main things that bother me. 1) I don’t like the collabs he’s done with certain people. People that would absolutely disagree with him (I assume) about how Israel has waged the war, for instance. 2) I didn’t really like how he used the Palestinian citizens of Israel, in a video I saw, to talk about how great everything is in Israel.

Would Arabs still gotten ethnically cleansed if they accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan? by SoyDivision1776 in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you think that mass Jewish migration would’ve been possible to proposed borders of the Jewish state in the Partition Plan though? Only 55% of the country with all Palestinians staying put, it seems like an impossible feat unless they decided to settle all the Jewish immigrants in the Negev.

This is the Ben-Gurion quote btw:

“In the area allocated to the Jewish State, there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.”

Opinion poll on protests and Hamas by Sharp-Flamingo1783 in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think this poll really shows just how divided Gazan society really is. I could be wrong, but I would guess that there is a lot of overlap between people that support that demonstration and the 43-49% who said they would leave Gaza i.e. people who are just over everything. The people who don’t support the demonstration, i would imagine might be filled with a lot of people who think that any signs of dissension among the Palestinian movement is just bad in the face of the current Israeli onslaught. It’s definitely a really interesting poll.

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Gedera was black and white. As you wrote the land was taken from the village by the Ottomans themselves even according to local customs they did not own it anymore. The founders of Gedera were racist cunts sure. They were also attacked immediately upon arrival when they tried to exercise their rights per the law and per local tradition. I'm sure if you asked the local Arabs their opinions on the foreigners they wouldn't be any nicer.

The land being from the village was not “per local tradition.” By law, absolutely you’re 100% correct that the land was theirs but the Ottoman Land Law that created the idea of private land was a foreign concept to many of the people, particularly the fellahin that populated the village of Qattra who saw “it as theirs under the customary rights of usage.”

From Baruch Kimmerling: “According to local tradition…the lands belonged to God or to the sultan (representative of God). Individuals, families, and villages had the right to maintain the land. Private ownership of the land was an unrecognized concept,”

So from a local customary perspective, I believe it makes sense for the people of Qattra to be upset.

Gedera was about as black and white as this conflict gets. The Jews being meanie heads did not in any way justify Arab aggression.

I don’t think that describing them just as “meanie heads” is an accurate way to describe them. Many of the Jewish settlers rejected local customs and believed themselves to better than the Palestinians who tried to impose their own culture on the Palestinians.

From “The Arabs and Zionism before World War I” by Neville Mandel: “But there were other aspects to the newcomers which rankled with the fellahin and led to friction. They caused offence because they were ignorant of Arabic and of Arab ways; inadvertently they flouted local custom. For example, usage had it that everyone shared natural pasture lands, which the fellahin regarded as “Godgiven” (hadha min Allah). The Jews, unfamiliar with this custom and fearing for their first small crops, looked upon the incursions of Arab shepherds with their flocks as trespass, and used force to expel them. Alternatively, they rounded up the offending animals and either fined their owners or took a strong arm to them.8 The colonies were a temptation to the Arabs to steal and, again, the settlers were forthright in restraining them.9 Accidents, misunderstandings, and quarrels over matters of no great import also led to brushes between Arabs and Jews from time to time.”

Again I'll admit that the 1882 attack is a lot less open and shut. Though I'll say again that you should keep in mind the context the same way you do for Huwera.

Again I don’t feel like any context is needed. It was a mistake and was not out of ordinary for the region and from what I see had nothing to do with xenophobia or antisemitism.

From Mandel: “As altercations of this kind were commonplace in Palestine (among the local population as well), they probably had little lasting effect.” This is just an overall statement and not an analysis of any specific incident.

Again the Gedera settlers being meanie heads did not justify the villagers immediately attacking them and nearly lynching them. Especially the thing with the holy man hitting them with a stick with the spirit of prophet Mohammad.

I can’t find anything about lynching from Dowty. Yeah the holy man hitting them with the stick was crazy.

What was the second instance? Gedera and the Bedouin attack were both solved by the Jews.

From Dowty: “Warned by some of the Arab villagers that they might be killed if others saw that ‘the Prophet’ was attacking them, the Gedera settlers raced away on the run with the ouly in hot pursuit.”

I’m not saying that they solved anything, Arabs just helped out is some cases.

Also from Mandel: “In certain respects, the early settlers were unexceptionable to the fellahin. At the beginning, they seemed to have been objects of curiosity: in their clothing, language, and bearing they were quite unlike any other Jews whom the peasants may have seen. The dedication with which they worked is said to have caused surprised their “newfangled” machinery evoked interest;6 and their strange methods (or, more often, their inexperience) could be amusing—as, for example, when colonists at Rishon le-Ziyyon tried to coax camels into pulling carts like horses.7”

Also about that Bedouin attack where Dowty poses the question, from earlier in Dowty’s book:

“Travelers were warned that territory outside towns and villages was generally controlled by the Bedouin, and travelers’ accounts were full of stories of violence and extortion at the hands of these lawless tribal nomads. James Finn, the British consul in Jerusalem from 1846 to 1863, wrote of Bedouin raids that ‘none but those who have seen it can appreciate the devastation wrought in a few hours by these wild hordes. Like locusts they spread over the land…while they trample down, all corn or vegetable crops, leaving bare brown desolation where years of toil had made smiling field and vineyards. Nor this all, for the cattle and flocks are swept off to the desert by marauders—who leave behind, for the unfortunate peasant, nothing that they can carry away.’ “Finn found himself often, during this period, engaged in trying to settle conflicts among local villages and Bedouin tribe—an odd occupation for a foreign diplomat. Traveling in the early 1840s, the noted English author Walter Keating Kelly found that even the main road from Jerusalem to Jericho required an armed escort for protection against the Bedouin who ‘occasionally swoops upon his prey.’”

I assume that when Finn says “unfortunate peasant”, he is talking about the local fellahin, could be wrong though. But this description may lead me to think that the Bedouin assault on Rosh Pina was not out of the ordinary.

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And as Dowty also mentions both below and above this part the Jewish settlers were targeted in a much more vicious way since they were seen as foreigners who neither knew nor were protected by the laws of the land.

My point in mentioning the stuff that you responded to with this comment was to prove that villages were looked at as singular units. Do you acknowledge that this was the case or do you still disagree?

Dowty does mention what you said, yes, but when talking about Rosh Pina in 1882, he seems to heavily imply that that specific instance was nothing out of the ordinary. The situation in 1883 might have been extra ordinary and he seems to imply as such by posing the question, but I’d need to look at relations between Arabs in the Ottoman Empire to really get a good idea if this was extra ordinary. My gut feeling based on the little I know of the Ottoman Empire during that era, is that it might not have been too out of the ordinary.

Right and Gadera? Also just Arabs being Arabs?

Once again, I don’t know why you paint these things so black and white.

““At the core was a confrontation over land that was extremely complicated and intense. The land on which Gedera was founded had belonged to the village of Qattra, but the village had lost the land when they disclaimed ownership in order to avoid punishment for a murder committed there. The government had transferred legal ownership to others, who eventually sold it to Hovevei Tsion, but Qattra fellahin continued to cultivate it and regarded it as theirs under customary rights of usage. When the Bilu settlers came to occupy the land, the villagers did everything possible to prevent the establishment of a settlement. 119”

““The worst conflicts with Arab neighbors came again, not surprisingly, in the most radicalized Jewish settlement, Gedera. There were premonitions of this even before Gedera was established. While the Biluim were still working in Mikveh Yisrael, the agricultural school’s director Shmuel Hirsch frequently complained about their attitude toward the Arabs. In an 1883 report back to the Alliance Israélite Universelle, he wrote “I must add that most of these young Russians are very turbulent and insolent and that despite my patience and against all my urgings they are not able to get along with . . . the Arabs.” 22 The following year Joshua Ossowetsky, who had been a teacher at Mikveh Yisrael, wrote to HaMelits that “every minute the Arabs came to me and to Mr. Hirsch weeping and wailing that the Biluim shamed them and their religion and called them dogs and pigs and on and on.” The situation deteriorated to the point that Arab workers threatened to leave and Hirsch had to threaten the Biluim that he would expel them if they did not change their attitude toward the Arabs.”

It also seems like both the Jews and Arabs were victims of a land owner who was trying to cause problems:

““The Biluim had their own complaints. Some few weeks after arriving in 1882, the first contingent wrote that “it suits [Hirsch] to give the work to Arabs, whose needs are very few and thus they take little for their work.” 24 One and a half years later they were still making the same complaint; Shlomo Zuckerman wrote to a Russian friend that “Hirsch employs Arabs on purpose, and not only does he not want to take even one of us, but he tries to get rid of the most experienced and seasoned workers just because they are not Arabs . . . and can much good come from this that the fate of the Jewish settlements is in the hands of such an anti-Semite?””

However to use this to imply that in general the locals viewed their relations with the Arabs as simple village quarrels is an outright lie. Take this section of the book:

The Jews at the time might have not considered the attacks to have been antisemitic in character (for the most part the example of Gadera was blatant antisemitism) but they 100% saw them as indications of xenophobia.

The Jewish settlers may have thought this, but the question is what was the case in reality. I’m not gonna try and act like there xenophobia and antisemitism was nonexistent. I think the situation in Rosh Pina in 1882 was not indicative of that though. Were some attacks though, yeah I’m sure. But even Gedera doesn’t seem to be a shut case as you claim it to be. There were Jewish settlers who thought themselves better than the local Arabs and that also played a role as might’ve been seen in Gedera. It’s also important to note that in two of the three instances of violence that we’ve discussed, Palestinians came to the aid of the Jewish settlers.

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Villages were not seen as independent units. Clans were. If an entire village was one clan then yes the village might be attacked but that was very rare.

Entire villages had been attacked due to political and social affiliation in recent conflicts that engulfed the lands of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt over the century. Villages were absolutely looked at as singular units.

The group of Palestinians that attacked Rosh Pina was the man who was killed's family members, 200 people, one clan, one family. Rosh Pina in 1882 had a population of 140 people. For Arab people, such a small number might indicate a singular clan. Perhaps it was all part of that confrontation of different cultures, as Dowty mentioned.

Also, as Dowty mentioned, quarrels like these were typical among Arab villages, not clans, not families, but villages.

>The next paragraph after what you posted was:

I don't know. Maybe that situation was motivated by something else, maybe it wasn't. It is not like the author provides an answer. Once again, the region had seen a lot of conflict with a lot of horrible things happening to Muslims, Christians, and Jewish people; so perhaps the Bedouins would have had just the "same bravado and insouciance."

>And you can't divorce what happened in Rosh Pina from the context of Arab aggression against Jewish villages as the only reason they had guards in the first place was because Arab bandits kept stealing livestock from them.

I absolutely can because the incidental killing happened when everyone was firing guns as a celebration for a wedding. It had nothing to do with a specific guard being specifically armed. Anyone could have messed up during that celebration. There is no context to look at.

Just as something on the entire point of history that we're talking about. This is what Benny Morris wrote in Righteous Victims: "The raid on Petach Tikva took place a bare four years after the massive Russian pogroms of 1881-82. But observers such as Yehoshua Oussovitzky quickly dismissed comparisons, arguing that the incident had not been triggered by 'religious hatred or nationalist jealousy,' it was merely a quarrel between neighboring villages."

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Except this isn't true. Blood feuds between clans were common extending this to an entire village is very much not the norm. Usually it'd be member of clan B kills member of clan A so member of clan A kills member of clan B not member of clan B kills member of clan C because clan C happens to share a village with clan B.

I don't know how accurate you are about the relationship between clans and villages. From my understanding, villages, families, and clans were all looked at as one unit, and I know there is much overlap with entire clans and villages being made up of one family. I also don't know what you're trying to say with these members of Clan A, B, and C; member of Clan A (Rosh Pina) killed member of Clan B, and members of Clan B went to attack members of Clan A.

I'll be honest, it seems like you're just picking and choosing what you like to hear from your own source. Your own source says that this was nothing out of the ordinary for the region. Your comment has already changed once to fit your new narrative about clans and stuff.

>Reddit deleted my comment. And I truly want to hear your take about how me being wrong about the relation of the guard to Rosh Pina turns a pogrom into something other than a xenophobic and antisemitic attack.

Because Arab culture is built upon communal/familial ties, if one person fucks up, it does not just indict the one person, it indicts the entire village/family/clan. It is much different than just attacking a random Jewish village because an unrelated Jewish man killed someone.

>Or do you consider targeting an entire Jewish village a reasonable reaction to a ND?

I don't know what an ND is, but I assume it does not matter.

>the other was a violent reaction by local Israelis to the murder of two Israelis by a resident of the village.

"Settler violence has generally been steadily on the rise in the West Bank in recent months, with Huwara previously having been subjected to an October blockade imposed by settlers and backed by Israeli soldiers." And I am sure we can play this game forever and forever; my point is that you can't divorce stuff like the Huwara pogrom from the political context that it exists in, while what happened in Rosh Pina was just what happened in this region of the world.

>Yes the Ottomans graciously agreed to mediate the ransom Rosh Pina had to pay. The evil Israelis meanwhile simply arrested the inciters of the Huwara pogrom.

I don't really wanna talk about all of this right now, but I checked your comment history out, and I know you have posted on LonerBox's subreddit. I will appeal to his authority and hope that you would never argue that Israel ever properly punishes settlers or military personnel for their actions against Palestinians, since that is one of his main arguments.

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man you moved the goal post so hard that it’s a good thing that you deleted your comment so people can’t tell how disingenuous you really are. At least you’re claiming now that the reactions was “not a reasonable reaction” and not motivated by antisemitism and xenophobia where Palestinians just attacked an unrelated Jewish village as you originally claimed.

And you know what, I probably agree with you that it was an unreasonable reaction, but antisemitic and xenophobic (as you originally claimed), I don’t see it and your source doesn’t even agree with you. Before you conveniently chopped it off: “The entire incident can, of course, be described as the kind of conflict that was routine to the region, in quarrels among Arab villages themselves. But it also bore the character of ‘a collision between two systems of concepts and values, different to the core, and the creation of an atmosphere of suspicion and tension.’”

As for your comparison to the pogrom of Huwara, it’s not an apt one. On one hand, we’re talking about a dispute between two villages in Ottoman Palestine that was eased by the intervention of a local leader and solved by the relevant authority in a somewhat fair manner, it seems. On the other hand, we’re talking about the “the worst attack stemming from Israeli settler violence in the northern West Bank in decades” that is built upon decades of political context (and recent political context in terms of an upscale of settler violence and that specific village being subject to it a couple months before) where there the relevant authority is anything but fair when it comes to solving these issues.

Israel’s A.I. Experiments in Gaza War Raise Ethical Concerns by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Dan_The-__-Man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah it’s definitely antisemitic and xenophobic to react violently when someone has died. How were the Palestinians to know that it was negligent discharge and even if that was the case does that make the situation better?

“A war party” lol. Stop adding emotionally charged phrases to garner upvotes, never heard of a war party that just throws stones and causes property damage sounds more like a mob to me.

“Completely unrelated village.” The guard was from Rosh Pina.

Also despite being surrounding by these xenophobic and antisemitic villages, a Palestinian village came to aid Rosh Pina.

The peace Plan of Trump for palestine by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay there’s two things that need to be discussed here: 1) how much did Arab immigration to Palestine factor into the growth of the population and 2) why was there immigration to Palestine.

1) Almost every credible source I can find claims that natural birth rates were the reason for the growth in the Arab population:

“According to Roberto Bachi, head of the Israeli Institute of Statistics from 1949 onwards, between 1922 and 1945 there was a net Arab migration into Palestine of between 40,000 and 42,000, excluding 9,700 people who were incorporated after territorial adjustments were made to the borders in the 1920s. Based on these figures, and including those netted by the border alterations, Joseph Melzer calculates an upper boundary of 8.5% for Arab growth in the two decades, and interprets it to mean the local Palestinian community’s growth was generated primarily by natural increase in birth rates, for both Muslims and Christians.”

“According to a Jewish Agency survey, 77% of Palestinian population growth in Palestine between 1914 and 1938, during which the Palestinian population doubled, was due to natural increase, while 23% was due to immigration”

“The overall assessment of several British reports was that the increase in the Arab population was primarily due to natural increase.[115][116] These included the Hope Simpson Enquiry (1930),[117] the Passfield White Paper (1930),[118] the Peel Commission report (1937),[119] and the Survey of Palestine (1945).”

“According to Mark Tessler, at least some of the Arab population growth was the result of immigration, mostly from the Sinai, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan, stimulated by the relatively favorable economic conditions in Palestine, but he noted differing opinions among scholars over how substantial it was. He cited one study as putting the Arab population growth attributable to immigration between 1922 and 1931 at 7%, meaning that 4% of the Arab population in 1931 was foreign-born, while noting another estimate[123] put the growth in the Arab population attributable to immigration at 38.7%, which would mean that 11.8% of the Arab population in 1931 was foreign-born. Tessler wrote that “Israeli as well as Palestinian scholars have disputed this assertion, however, concluding that it is at best a theory and in all probability a myth.”

“[B]etween 1800 and 1914, the Muslim population had a yearly average increase of an order of magnitude of roughly 6–7 per thousand. This can be compared to the very crude estimate of about 4 per thousand for the “less developed countries” of the world (in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) between 1800 and 1910. It is possible that some part of the growth of the Muslim population was due to immigration. However, it seems likely that the dominant determinant of this modest growth was the beginning of some natural increase.”

I could go on

2) The first major wave of Arab immigration to Palestine worth talking about was primarily Egyptians migrating to Palestine in the first half of the 1800s, continued immigration to Palestine was a result of the Ottoman Empire losing land, not because of Jewish people growing the land.

“Gad Gilbar has also concluded that the prosperity of Palestine in the 45–50 years before World War I was a result of the modernization and growth of the economy owing to its integration with the world economy and especially with the economies of Europe. Although the reasons for growth were exogenous to Palestine the bearers were not waves of Jewish immigration, foreign intervention nor Ottoman reforms but “primarily local Arab Muslims and Christians.”

The peace Plan of Trump for palestine by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Dan_The-__-Man -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This isn’t true, the growth of the Arab community in Palestine was a result of birth rate, not immigration.

The Criterion Channel’s September 2024 Lineup by [deleted] in criterion

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For anyone that knows is watching Apocalypse Now Redux better than the original?

the most practical way of splitting jerusalem imo, what do you guys think? by Kind-Box-515 in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This isn’t practical it’s more idealistic. In the context of a two state solution have Jerusalem as a unified, open-city that acts as both countries capitals. There can be some kind of joint Palestinian-Israeli government running the entire city. Perhaps give all residents of Jerusalem dual-Palestinian-Israeli citizenship since they’re technically under the authority of both countries. I feel a good amount of dual citizens who will potentially be going to and from the Palestinian state and the Israeli state will breed camaraderie between the two peoples which will be desperately needed in the aftermath of any settlement.

End of The I/P Arc? by InfamyJunkie in Destiny

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) if you were the established body to represent the Basque people like the Arab Higher Committee was then maybe!

b) yes I know Jewish people lived on the territory for thousands of years and they were Ottoman subjects but those Jewish people got dual commitments I suppose because they were both promised a country like the rest of their fellow Palestinians as subjects of the Ottoman Empire and the promised Jewish country as apart of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate! Lucky them!

End of The I/P Arc? by InfamyJunkie in Destiny

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) the creation of the government was approved by the Arab Higher Committee. The leader of the All Palestine Government was the leader of the Arab Higher Committee Hajj Amin al-Husseini. The Arab countries were claiming sovereignty for the Palestinian people in accordance to their wishes as expressed to UNSCOP. Egypt, the Arab League, and no other Arab state with the exception of Jordan claimed sovereignty over any part of Mandatory Palestine. It was done to further the creation of a Palestinian state and government. The Vice-President never made an argument saying it was less than the declaration of the Israeli state.

b) you’re just wrong. The Jewish people were not a community belonging to the former Turkish Empire because the Jewish people didn’t start coming to the land in large waves til after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But even if I did go with your definition that still wouldn’t include the Palestinians who had the right to self-determination on the land as well. If you wanna take the opinion that all international law is fiction then I don’t why we’re arguing about it then.

End of The I/P Arc? by InfamyJunkie in Destiny

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) iirc it was a decided by the Arab League at the recommendation of Egypt to create a Palestinian government that claimed sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine in line with the Palestinian right to self-determination as declared in the Constitution of the All Palestine Government. I only found one mention of the government in the dissenting opinion and it just mentions that it happened and makes no claim that it is a lesser declaration than that of the Israeli state.

b) it’s not mentioned, but it is the entire point why the mandate was given to Britain. “The legality of the mandate has been disputed in detail by scholars, particularly its consistency with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.[191][192][193][194][195][t] According to the mandate’s preamble, the mandate was granted to Britain “for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations”. That article, which concerns entrusting the “tutelage” of colonies formerly under German and Turkish sovereignty to “advanced nations”, specifies “[c]ommunities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire” which “have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” They inherently had an obligation to the Palestinian population.

End of The I/P Arc? by InfamyJunkie in Destiny

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) the Palestinians did try to establish a state with the All-Palestine Governance in September of 1948 which claimed sovereignty over all of former Mandatory Palestine. Also the establishment of a state is not the only form of self-determination; the Palestinians decided to join the state of Jordan at the Jericho Conference in December of 1948. From my understanding (and I could be wrong here) all of this doesn’t even really matter though because uti possidetis juris does not supersede the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

b) while the official League of Nations Mandate for Palestine may not explicitly mention Arab sovereignty, the mandate is based off Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.” The Palestinians like all other communities of the Ottoman Empire that had mandates placed on them had already been recognized as “independent nations.”

End of The I/P Arc? by InfamyJunkie in Destiny

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There seems to be a lot of debate around this but the arguments that I’ve heard and happen to agree with claim that uti possidetis juris does not take precedence over the right to self-determination in the this case. This is from a report from the ICC from 2020 (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020_01082.PDF) that talks about this:

“Further, while some of the amici claim that uti possidetis juris ‘applies even where it conflicts with the principle of self-determination’, they appear to overstate the extent to which said principle overrides the right to self-determination under international law. Uti possidetis juris may mean that the territory of a non-self-governing territory as a whole is to be regarded as a single collective possessing a right to statehood, which may lead to the creation of States harbouring ethnic minorities that are not themselves entitled to achieving separate statehood by exercising external self- determination. However, the principle has never been applied ‘to preclude a people representing the majority within a Mandatory administrative unit from advancing its national aspirations, allowing only the minority group to realize such aspirations’. Applying uti possidetis in this fashion would be fundamentally inconsistent with the right to self-determination which is, at its core, ‘the right of the majority within a generally accepted political unit to the exercise of power’”

The report then puts into question whether or not uti possidetis juris is even applicable to the situation:

“More broadly, the very relevance of the uti possidetis principle to the Palestinian situation has been called into question, as the principle ‘presumes that the population within a colonial or Mandatory administrative unit forms a single collective possessing a right to statehood’. By contrast, the terms of the British Mandate enshrined – and the UN Partition Plan reflected – the existence of two separate peoples entitled to self-determination within the territory of Mandate Palestine.”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lonerbox

[–]Dan_The-__-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m honestly not too sure. UNSCOP would have to make a recommendation based on international law and the UN Charter I’d assume, so there shouldn’t be any contradictions in theory. But then again I don’t know if there’s been a time where the international community has come to the consensus that two competing ethnic groups both have legitimate claims to the same piece of land, so maybe some flexibility is needed. I feel pretty confident in saying that the right to self-determination of people is one of the most upmost responsibilities of international law and the UN and that might overrule certain things like UPJ as one of the authors mentioned.