Abbas says Palestinians no longer bound by pacts with Israel

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Question: Are all UN Resolutions the "law?"

You know, Rocco, after studying international law I came to some conclusions that I have reported in this forum. I post a video of a professor of international law who comes to the same conclusions. Other legal scholars have drawn the same conclusions. UN resolutions state that the Palestinians have the right of return.

Then you come along and say that all of our assessments are incorrect. I don't understand where you get your information.

(COMMENT)

You've studied the Law. OK! Help me out here.

How do you tell the difference between a "binding" Resolution and a "non-binding" resolution.

I do not argue that the "Right of Return" is not suggested or implied. Certainly, the UDHR Article 13(2) is an example. The question becomes: Is it law?

IF, your statement is correct --- that the RoR is law and it is so widely understood that it is law, then any competent legal scholar should be able to point-out where it is in the law. And that is what I'm asking. What is the citation for RoR in the law? When did the law go into force? Should be easy if you have studied the law.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world, but it bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to create a body of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms needed to enforce its implementation and use.

The Human Rights Commission produced two major documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both became international law in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these two covenants comprise what is known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”
​

You will notice that the CCPR and CESCR did not become LAW until decade after the Six-Day War and more than six decades after the 1949 Armistice. Generally speaking (although you would know better), a law deemed ex post facto is unenforceable. So I ask: Is there an applicable law that covers the period 1947 through 1967?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

Then detail those laws with their names and date of implementation. Just saying that this agreement brings together existing laws means nothing unless you show the laws and their impact.

Your question tells me that you do not know the process of the establishment of international law.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

I have to agree this time with Toast, why complicate the peace, just go back to the 67 lines and Internationalize Jerusalem!

Will the arab muslims accept that, having to give up control of the Jews holiest site

This was the original recommendation of the UN, it made sensed then and now.

Not to the arab muslims who invaded and started to destroy many historic buildings in the name of allah. The same thing is still going on today as the muslims try and eliminate all artifacts from other religions so they can claim they never existed.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Question: Are all UN Resolutions the "law?"

You know, Rocco, after studying international law I came to some conclusions that I have reported in this forum. I post a video of a professor of international law who comes to the same conclusions. Other legal scholars have drawn the same conclusions. UN resolutions state that the Palestinians have the right of return.

Then you come along and say that all of our assessments are incorrect. I don't understand where you get your information.

(COMMENT)

You've studied the Law. OK! Help me out here.

How do you tell the difference between a "binding" Resolution and a "non-binding" resolution.

I do not argue that the "Right of Return" is not suggested or implied. Certainly, the UDHR Article 13(2) is an example. The question becomes: Is it law?

IF, your statement is correct --- that the RoR is law and it is so widely understood that it is law, then any competent legal scholar should be able to point-out where it is in the law. And that is what I'm asking. What is the citation for RoR in the law? When did the law go into force? Should be easy if you have studied the law.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world, but it bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to create a body of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms needed to enforce its implementation and use.

The Human Rights Commission produced two major documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both became international law in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these two covenants comprise what is known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”
​

You will notice that the CCPR and CESCR did not become LAW until decade after the Six-Day War and more than six decades after the 1949 Armistice. Generally speaking (although you would know better), a law deemed ex post facto is unenforceable. So I ask: Is there an applicable law that covers the period 1947 through 1967?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

Then detail those laws with their names and date of implementation. Just saying that this agreement brings together existing laws means nothing unless you show the laws and their impact.

Your question tells me that you do not know the process of the establishment of international law.

Wrong as I do know the process of International law making. They are either made by international treaty or by custom and practise. In either case they are ratified before becoming international law.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Question: Are all UN Resolutions the "law?"

You know, Rocco, after studying international law I came to some conclusions that I have reported in this forum. I post a video of a professor of international law who comes to the same conclusions. Other legal scholars have drawn the same conclusions. UN resolutions state that the Palestinians have the right of return.

Then you come along and say that all of our assessments are incorrect. I don't understand where you get your information.

(COMMENT)


Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali.


You've studied the Law. OK! Help me out here.

How do you tell the difference between a "binding" Resolution and a "non-binding" resolution.

I do not argue that the "Right of Return" is not suggested or implied. Certainly, the UDHR Article 13(2) is an example. The question becomes: Is it law?

IF, your statement is correct --- that the RoR is law and it is so widely understood that it is law, then any competent legal scholar should be able to point-out where it is in the law. And that is what I'm asking. What is the citation for RoR in the law? When did the law go into force? Should be easy if you have studied the law.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world, but it bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to create a body of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms needed to enforce its implementation and use.

The Human Rights Commission produced two major documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both became international law in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these two covenants comprise what is known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”
​

You will notice that the CCPR and CESCR did not become LAW until decade after the Six-Day War and more than six decades after the 1949 Armistice. Generally speaking (although you would know better), a law deemed ex post facto is unenforceable. So I ask: Is there an applicable law that covers the period 1947 through 1967?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Question: Are all UN Resolutions the "law?"

(COMMENT)

You've studied the Law. OK! Help me out here.

How do you tell the difference between a "binding" Resolution and a "non-binding" resolution.

I do not argue that the "Right of Return" is not suggested or implied. Certainly, the UDHR Article 13(2) is an example. The question becomes: Is it law?

IF, your statement is correct --- that the RoR is law and it is so widely understood that it is law, then any competent legal scholar should be able to point-out where it is in the law. And that is what I'm asking. What is the citation for RoR in the law? When did the law go into force? Should be easy if you have studied the law.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world, but it bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to create a body of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms needed to enforce its implementation and use.

The Human Rights Commission produced two major documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both became international law in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these two covenants comprise what is known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”
​

You will notice that the CCPR and CESCR did not become LAW until decade after the Six-Day War and more than six decades after the 1949 Armistice. Generally speaking (although you would know better), a law deemed ex post facto is unenforceable. So I ask: Is there an applicable law that covers the period 1947 through 1967?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Ari, you're beginning to sound like your handlers with that doubletalk...The real reason is not proving residency but pure self-preservation to delay the Demographic time bomb that is currently ticking...

 

[montelatici]

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Isn't that what the European Jews claimed when they invaded Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Refugees return to a place not a name.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Ari, you're beginning to sound like your handlers with that doubletalk...The real reason is not proving residency but pure self-preservation to delay the Demographic time bomb that is currently ticking...

handler?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not create law. It merely compiled already existing international laws. Many of these predate the 20th century. It would be incorrect to use the date of the Declaration as the start date of the referenced laws. And you can't just throw out the term "non binding" to negate the value of longstanding customary laws.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

I agree, and will add that most of the refugees never even set foot in Israel or Palestine prior to 1947

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Ari, you're beginning to sound like your handlers with that doubletalk...The real reason is not proving residency but pure self-preservation to delay the Demographic time bomb that is currently ticking...

You mean the one that will see virulent disease run unstoppable through the islamonazi population because of their cramped living conditions and filth they allow to build up. Only time before nature takes a hand and starts to wipe out the cancer that is Palestine.

Now what legal right do they have to steal Israeli land that they have never even seen, never mind owned

 

[Phoenall]

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Isn't that what the European Jews claimed when they invaded Palestine?

NO they claimed they were invited by the sovereign owners to close settle and make the land fertile. It is islamonazi propaganda that says what you posted.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, in the course of discussions, especially with pro-Palestinians, they attempt to invoke ancient or longstanding law that pre-date codification like the UDHR. This is no less true when the Arab Palestinians attempt to manipulate the concept of Customary Law in their favor.

(COMMENT)

Your little video is all well and good. In fact there are many aspects of Human Rights that are probably universally accepted. But the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) is not one of them.

Throughout history, there have been Empires and Kingdoms that have used expulsion as a political tool. Whether we review the Edict of Expulsion expelling Jews from England in 1290; examine the 1492 the Edict of Expulsion used by Isabel and Ferdinand; or we talk about the routing of the Native American Indians in the mid-1860's; or the mid-20th Century expulsion and termination of Jews. What was accepted as a "Human Right" was dictated through much of history by powerful sovereigns and religious orders. What we find, all the way into the mid-20th Century is that Human Rights were undefined and anything but universally adopted. Even the UDHR of 1948 (non-binding and unenforceable) does not actually say anything about the RoR; of even refugees. Expulsions have been with us all through history. Remember, slavery and the trade in slaves did not end in America until 1865. Although not approved by Allies at Potsdam, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans living in Yugoslavia and Romania were deported to slave labour in the former Soviet Union. During the same period, millions of former Russian citizens were forcefully repatriated against their will into the former Soviet Union.

View attachment 51508​

Finally, there is no longstanding history of a RoR. Citizens generally have a right for the departure and return.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Refugees return to a place not a name.

So let them return to their place in Egypt or Syria which is where they came from.

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, you will find violations of people's rights all over the place. However, that does not negate the rights of others.

Your issues were addressed in the video I posted. It is interesting that she comes to same conclusions that I had found and posted earlier from my own studies of the issue.

Right of return is a pipe dream. It's simply not going to happen, ever. Israel would be foolish to allow itself to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel. Not to mention it would be demographic suicide.

Few of the refugees ever lived in Israel. Those alive now are palestinians and should be settled in the WB and G

You can say your grandmother once lived in Timbuktu but that does not mean you have a right to live in Mali

Ari, you're beginning to sound like your handlers with that doubletalk...The real reason is not proving residency but pure self-preservation to delay the Demographic time bomb that is currently ticking...

handler?

He is being disrespectful and insulting because he cant answer the points raised