Abbas says Palestinians no longer bound by pacts with Israel

[Phoenall]

in 539, who were forced to leave their homes. The diaspora were allowed to return

the exodus returned the people to their native land. there was the Assyrian captivity as well. Jews have been trying return after Rome force many to leave

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

Then why was there virtually no interest in going there until the end of the 19th century?

Study some history, Jews reestablished big influential communities in Safed, Tiberias and Bet Shean for example. Long before 19th century.

That's true, however, the Jews were only a few percent of the Population at the turn of the century.

Not according to the Ottoman census that showed they were in the majority, or are you disputing muslim sources

Link?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


Change ORG to COM as the site has moved.

And these are the figures for the sanjak of Jerusalem that takes in most of what is now Israel and some of Jordan. It only counts Ottoman citizens and not itinerant traveling arab muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You can post these videos until the sun goes cold it still does not mean that right of return is enforceable by law. If it was Mecca and Medina would be Jewish again and no more haj

in 539, who were forced to leave their homes. The diaspora were allowed to return

the exodus returned the people to their native land. there was the Assyrian captivity as well. Jews have been trying return after Rome force many to leave

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

All you right wing wackos are the same, so what that Jews prayed to return to lands they were disposed after they revolted on an Empire most of the world was dying to get into?

They are not praying now, they are preying and killing people who stand in their way!

Are they then why are they offering peace talks and such to the Palestinians.

Do you mean those fake peace talks where the primary precondition is for the Palestinians to surrender and disarm?

Only if you are an islamonazi half wit propagandist, the rest of the civilised world saw that it was a fair and just peace deal. Now they are losing ground because they demand things that have no standing in international law, and when the Jews refuse to capitulate they walk away[/QUOTE]
Well good for them. How does that refute my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then why was there virtually no interest in going there until the end of the 19th century?

Study some history, Jews reestablished big influential communities in Safed, Tiberias and Bet Shean for example. Long before 19th century.

That's true, however, the Jews were only a few percent of the Population at the turn of the century.

Not according to the Ottoman census that showed they were in the majority, or are you disputing muslim sources

Link?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


Change ORG to COM as the site has moved.

And these are the figures for the sanjak of Jerusalem that takes in most of what is now Israel and some of Jordan. It only counts Ottoman citizens and not itinerant traveling arab muslims.

So, who was talking about Jerusalem?

 

[Phoenall]

in 539, who were forced to leave their homes. The diaspora were allowed to return

the exodus returned the people to their native land. there was the Assyrian captivity as well. Jews have been trying return after Rome force many to leave

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

Then why was there virtually no interest in going there until the end of the 19th century?

Study some history, Jews reestablished big influential communities in Safed, Tiberias and Bet Shean for example. Long before 19th century.

So what? Does that give Rome and the Italians to go back and take say Londra or London that they first established?

Your thinking logic is flawed, be glad that the Palestinians and the Arabs who first welcomed Jews back to the area are willing to recognize Israel to the 67 armistice lines!

Which is where the Israelis are at, the green line. Which the world recognises as the borders.

Offer proof of this recognition with a link, Phoney!

I give you your own posts were you demand the Israelis return to the 67 borders that as you claim the world recognises as the borders of Israel

 

[Phoenall]

in 539, who were forced to leave their homes. The diaspora were allowed to return

the exodus returned the people to their native land. there was the Assyrian captivity as well. Jews have been trying return after Rome force many to leave

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

All you right wing wackos are the same, so what that Jews prayed to return to lands they were disposed after they revolted on an Empire most of the world was dying to get into?

They are not praying now, they are preying and killing people who stand in their way!

Are they then why are they offering peace talks and such to the Palestinians.

Do you mean those fake peace talks where the primary precondition is for the Palestinians to surrender and disarm?

Only if you are an islamonazi half wit propagandist, the rest of the civilised world saw that it was a fair and just peace deal. Now they are losing ground because they demand things that have no standing in international law, and when the Jews refuse to capitulate they walk away

Well good for them. How does that refute my post?[/QUOTE]




Simple as they show it was only fake from the islamonazi side

 

[Phoenall]

Study some history, Jews reestablished big influential communities in Safed, Tiberias and Bet Shean for example. Long before 19th century.

That's true, however, the Jews were only a few percent of the Population at the turn of the century.

Not according to the Ottoman census that showed they were in the majority, or are you disputing muslim sources

Link?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


Change ORG to COM as the site has moved.

And these are the figures for the sanjak of Jerusalem that takes in most of what is now Israel and some of Jordan. It only counts Ottoman citizens and not itinerant traveling arab muslims.

So, who was talking about Jerusalem?

The Ottomans who used the SANJAK of Jerusalem as the population for what is now Palestine. You asked for a link and you got it, just because it proves you wrong you try and change the goalposts

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jews have been praying for return since the 10th C bce

All you right wing wackos are the same, so what that Jews prayed to return to lands they were disposed after they revolted on an Empire most of the world was dying to get into?

They are not praying now, they are preying and killing people who stand in their way!

Are they then why are they offering peace talks and such to the Palestinians.

Do you mean those fake peace talks where the primary precondition is for the Palestinians to surrender and disarm?

Only if you are an islamonazi half wit propagandist, the rest of the civilised world saw that it was a fair and just peace deal. Now they are losing ground because they demand things that have no standing in international law, and when the Jews refuse to capitulate they walk away

Well good for them. How does that refute my post?

Simple as they show it was only fake from the islamonazi side[/QUOTE]
How so?

 

[Phoenall]

They w

All you right wing wackos are the same, so what that Jews prayed to return to lands they were disposed after they revolted on an Empire most of the world was dying to get into?

They are not praying now, they are preying and killing people who stand in their way!

Are they then why are they offering peace talks and such to the Palestinians.

Do you mean those fake peace talks where the primary precondition is for the Palestinians to surrender and disarm?

Only if you are an islamonazi half wit propagandist, the rest of the civilised world saw that it was a fair and just peace deal. Now they are losing ground because they demand things that have no standing in international law, and when the Jews refuse to capitulate they walk away

Well good for them. How does that refute my post?

Simple as they show it was only fake from the islamonazi side

How so?[/QUOTE]
They were the ones putting pre conditions on the peace talks so they could walk away with no action taken.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They w

Are they then why are they offering peace talks and such to the Palestinians.

Do you mean those fake peace talks where the primary precondition is for the Palestinians to surrender and disarm?

Only if you are an islamonazi half wit propagandist, the rest of the civilised world saw that it was a fair and just peace deal. Now they are losing ground because they demand things that have no standing in international law, and when the Jews refuse to capitulate they walk away

Well good for them. How does that refute my post?

Simple as they show it was only fake from the islamonazi side

How so?

They were the ones putting pre conditions on the peace talks so they could walk away with no action taken.[/QUOTE]
Like what?

 

[Phoenall]

Right of return for 3 million arab muslims who had never lived in Israel, payment of compensation for damages never received, a return to borders they never accepted. And until these were met they refused to talk.

 

[RoccoR]

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

 

[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.

 

[RoccoR]

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)

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.

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

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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.

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.

(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.

 

[toastman]

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)

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

(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.

All well and good but why do you refuse to itemise these rights and how they are being breached

Just because one or two other people agree with your POV, because that is all it is without ratification, does not mean that your POV is correct. As in the RoR the ICC/ICJ have decreed that it is not enforceable under law and that it is up to individual nations on if they implement it or not. This is why no Islamic nation has implemented the RoR and until they do Israel wont.

 

[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.

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.

(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!

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[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.

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.