Are the Palestinians a real people?

[ForeverYoung436]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

 

[admonit]

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

Actually, family unity, they are registered as refugees.

It's not "actually", but just your opinion, which you cannot prove.
And I provided an official data.

They are children born in a camp where neither they or their parents are permitted to leave.

So, how can you explain the current number of refugees 217,108, supposing that the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees?

If they are not refugees, what are they?.

Irrelevant. Either the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees or not. There are refugees in.your country, but they are not registered as UNHCR refugees.

 

[admonit]

What three generation?

Do you need me to do math for you?

With my M.S. in mathematics? Sure I need.

23 year old woman enters Dadaab refugee camp in 1991. She is generation one.

She has a child the next year, 1992. That child is generation two.

That child has a child in 2010. That child is generation three.


In 2019 there are three generations of children living in that refugee camp.

So, after 19 years you counted three generations? Great.
Now, after you teached me, you certainly can correct calculations of UN: 60 years - and oops just three generations.
Three Generations of Palestine refugees: The Quest for Human Rights and Human Dignity

 

[Ropey]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Just keeps standing up for Arabs.

Another leftist. Sheol for you.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Just keeps standing up for Arabs.

Another leftist. Sheol for you.

I'm not too crazy about Arabs, but they are still ppl too. They are decended from our father Avraham, so they are our cousins and Hashem blessed Ishmael. But more than caring about Arabs, I care about my fellow Jews, and I want us to live in peace. Don't all our prayers end with the words, "May Hashem bless His ppl Israel with peace?" It's really very childish to hint that I'm a traitor or to wish Hell upon me. (Although Hell is really called Gehinnom in Judaism. Sheol just means the Underworld and is mostly used by Christians. Are you a Christian?)

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Just keeps standing up for Arabs.

Another leftist. Sheol for you.

The Prophet Samuel lives in Sheol. I'll be in good company. Thank you.

 

[Ropey]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Just keeps standing up for Arabs.

Another leftist. Sheol for you.

I'm not too crazy about Arabs, but they are still ppl too. They are decended from our father Avraham, so they are our cousins and Hashem blessed Ishmael. But more than caring about Arabs, I care about my fellow Jews, and I want us to live in peace. Don't all our prayers end with the words, "May Hashem bless His ppl Israel with peace?" It's really very childish to hint that I'm a traitor or to wish Hell upon me. (Although Hell is really called Gehinnom in Judaism. Sheol just means the Underworld and is mostly used by Christians. Are you a Christian?)

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Just keeps standing up for Arabs.

Another leftist. Sheol for you.

The Prophet Samuel lives in Sheol. I'll be in good company. Thank you.

No.

That's a stopping point and no one lives there. That place just filters the evil out.

Now bow down to the state.

Forever Socialist.

 

[Ropey]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

 

[Ropey]

Indigent to Arabia....There has never been a Palestinian country.

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

No one said that they were.

And.

There's nothing cryptic about you bowing to the state. Kapos did as well. Bolsheviks also.

 

[Coyote]

Nowhere else in the world does the UN consider a descendant of a refugee also a refugee.

This isn't really strictly true. While I agree that there are "special rules" for the Palestinians, there are other places in the world where descendants carry the status of refugees.

Dadaab camp in Kenya has 330,000 Somali refugees, three generations. Admittedly, this is an unusual case, in that the refugees of Dadaab have not been permitted to leave.

"UNHCR set up the first camps in the Dadaab complex in 1991 to host up to 90,000 people."
Dadaab - World's biggest refugee camp 20 years old

28 years ago.

"The first camp was established in 1991, when refugees fleeing the civil war in Somalia started to cross the border into Kenya. A second large influx occurred in 2011, when some 130,000 refugees arrived"
Dadaab Refugee Complex - UNHCR Kenya

8 years ago.

What three generation?

"The Dadaab refugee complex has a population of 217,108 registered refugees and asylum seekers as at the end of October 2019."
Dadaab Refugee Complex - UNHCR Kenya

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

The Mayukwayuka camp in Zambia was set up in 1966. That would be 3 generations.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nowhere else in the world does the UN consider a descendant of a refugee also a refugee.

This isn't really strictly true. While I agree that there are "special rules" for the Palestinians, there are other places in the world where descendants carry the status of refugees.

Dadaab camp in Kenya has 330,000 Somali refugees, three generations. Admittedly, this is an unusual case, in that the refugees of Dadaab have not been permitted to leave.

"UNHCR set up the first camps in the Dadaab complex in 1991 to host up to 90,000 people."
Dadaab - World's biggest refugee camp 20 years old

28 years ago.

"The first camp was established in 1991, when refugees fleeing the civil war in Somalia started to cross the border into Kenya. A second large influx occurred in 2011, when some 130,000 refugees arrived"
Dadaab Refugee Complex - UNHCR Kenya

8 years ago.

What three generation?

"The Dadaab refugee complex has a population of 217,108 registered refugees and asylum seekers as at the end of October 2019."
Dadaab Refugee Complex - UNHCR Kenya

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

The Mayukwayuka camp in Zambia was set up in 1966. That would be 3 generations.

But as we have seen, under UNHCR rules only those who left Angola are refugees and not descendants born in Zambia.

 

[Shusha]

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

Actually, family unity, they are registered as refugees.

It's not "actually", but just your opinion, which you cannot prove.
And I provided an official data.

They are children born in a camp where neither they or their parents are permitted to leave.

So, how can you explain the current number of refugees 217,108, supposing that the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees?

If they are not refugees, what are they?.

Irrelevant. Either the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees or not. There are refugees in.your country, but they are not registered as UNHCR refugees.

Not my opinion, the UN's opinion

From UN.org

Descendants of refugees retain refugee status
Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. ... UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

Actually, family unity, they are registered as refugees.

It's not "actually", but just your opinion, which you cannot prove.
And I provided an official data.

They are children born in a camp where neither they or their parents are permitted to leave.

So, how can you explain the current number of refugees 217,108, supposing that the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees?

If they are not refugees, what are they?.

Irrelevant. Either the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees or not. There are refugees in.your country, but they are not registered as UNHCR refugees.

Not my opinion, the UN's opinion

From UN.org

Descendants of refugees retain refugee status
Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. ... UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.

Under the 1951 Convention on refugees, only those who left their country of origin can be considered refugees, and that Convention is the mandate the UNHCR is authorized to follow. The term, until a durable solution is found, is found only in the UNRWA mandate and not in any UNHCR document.

 

[Shusha]

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

Actually, family unity, they are registered as refugees.

It's not "actually", but just your opinion, which you cannot prove.
And I provided an official data.

They are children born in a camp where neither they or their parents are permitted to leave.

So, how can you explain the current number of refugees 217,108, supposing that the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees?

If they are not refugees, what are they?.

Irrelevant. Either the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees or not. There are refugees in.your country, but they are not registered as UNHCR refugees.

Not my opinion, the UN's opinion

From UN.org

Descendants of refugees retain refugee status
Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. ... UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.

Under the 1951 Convention on refugees, only those who left their country of origin can be considered refugees, and that Convention is the mandate the UNHCR is authorized to follow. The term, until a durable solution is found, is found only in the UNRWA mandate and not in any UNHCR document.

The principle of family unity, and the rights of the children of refugees, has been in place since the UN Conference on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons. The UN does consider the children of refugees to be refugees themselves, and that concept is being adopted in customary law. So, shrug. It is what it is.

And, frankly, it seems morally correct that children of Somali refugees living in a camp in Kenya should be considered refugees. Again, if they are not, what are they? Somali nationals? Kenyan nationals? It matters.

That said, this endless Palestinians descendant nonsense is just that -- nonsense.

 

[rylah]

Both these statements are true. Neither statement erases the Arab Palestinians self-identification or right to self-determination in that territory. New States come into being all the time. While there are obstacles to Palestine fully becoming a state, the fact that there hasn't been one in the past is not an obstacle to it becoming one in the future.

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

No one said that they were.

And.

There's nothing cryptic about you bowing to the state. Kapos did as well. Bolsheviks also.

Guys guys...

Instead of wasting time arguing about those whom the Torah calls 'non-people',
You could make Aliyah and vote in the next elections this spring.

Or before voting, join the ongoing discussions about Parliamentary Monarchy,
then instead of arguing about "bowing to state", You can argue who makes the King's Bracha and who answers Amen.

The Arabs... once relieved of the burden of playing the role the West projects on them, and responsibility for creating something they neither want nor know how, will have less psychological obstacles fitting into a power structure, an environment for which they've been wired and used to in the middle east most naturally.

All I'm saying we might not need another '67 to order things in their place,
just look at all the Arabs gathering around Rabbi Zamir Cohen...

 

[Ropey]

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

No one said that they were.

And.

There's nothing cryptic about you bowing to the state. Kapos did as well. Bolsheviks also.

Guys guys...

Instead of wasting time arguing about those whom the Torah calls 'no-people',
You could make Aliyah and vote in the next elections this spring.

Or before voting, join the ongoing discussions about Parliamentary Monarchy,
then instead of arguing about "bowing to state", You can argue who makes the King's Bracha and who answers Amen.

The Arabs... once relieved of the burden of playing the role the West projects on them, and responsibility for creating something they neither want nor know how, will have less psychological obstacles fitting into a power structure, an environment for which they've been wired and used to in the middle east most naturally.

All I'm saying we might not need another '67 to order things in their place,
just look at all the Arabs gathering around Rabbi Zamir Cohen...

I already have and do. Now I just come back to Canada for pension purposes and to visit.

Our left are somewhat better since they know the danger. The Western leftist Jews are far more philosophical about the danger.

js

 

[rylah]

1) I believe the word is indigenous. Doesn't indigent mean poor?

2) I also agree that there could be a fully independent "New Palestine" in the future, even though Palestine has never been an independent country in the past. But not at the expense of Israel! There can only be one if they agree, sincerely, to share the Land peacefully. (I've read New Palestine is the name that Jared Kushner wants to call the West Bank.)

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

No one said that they were.

And.

There's nothing cryptic about you bowing to the state. Kapos did as well. Bolsheviks also.

Guys guys...

Instead of wasting time arguing about those whom the Torah calls 'non-people',
You could make Aliyah and vote in the next elections this spring.

Or before voting, join the ongoing discussions about Parliamentary Monarchy,
then instead of arguing about "bowing to state", You can argue who makes the King's Bracha and who answers Amen.

The Arabs... once relieved of the burden of playing the role the West projects on them, and responsibility for creating something they neither want nor know how, will have less psychological obstacles fitting into a power structure, an environment for which they've been wired and used to in the middle east most naturally.

All I'm saying we might not need another '67 to order things in their place,
just look at all the Arabs gathering around Rabbi Zamir Cohen...

Ropey ForeverYoung436 - links added ^^^

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's unlikely that refugees' children, born in Kenya, are registered as refugees.

Actually, family unity, they are registered as refugees.

It's not "actually", but just your opinion, which you cannot prove.
And I provided an official data.

They are children born in a camp where neither they or their parents are permitted to leave.

So, how can you explain the current number of refugees 217,108, supposing that the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees?

If they are not refugees, what are they?.

Irrelevant. Either the children are automatically registered as UNHCR refugees or not. There are refugees in.your country, but they are not registered as UNHCR refugees.

Not my opinion, the UN's opinion

From UN.org

Descendants of refugees retain refugee status
Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. ... UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.

Under the 1951 Convention on refugees, only those who left their country of origin can be considered refugees, and that Convention is the mandate the UNHCR is authorized to follow. The term, until a durable solution is found, is found only in the UNRWA mandate and not in any UNHCR document.

The principle of family unity, and the rights of the children of refugees, has been in place since the UN Conference on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons. The UN does consider the children of refugees to be refugees themselves, and that concept is being adopted in customary law. So, shrug. It is what it is.

And, frankly, it seems morally correct that children of Somali refugees living in a camp in Kenya should be considered refugees. Again, if they are not, what are they? Somali nationals? Kenyan nationals? It matters.

That said, this endless Palestinians descendant nonsense is just that -- nonsense.

There is no UN convention on refugees other than the 1951 Convention on the Status of refugees and the UNRWA mandate, so these are the only legal guidelines for the definition of a refugee and while UNRWA makes a political statement about Palestinian refugees by declaring the refugees until the end of time until a durable solution the Arabs approve of is found, UNHCR makes no political statements about the people it provides for.

The original draft for UNRWA stated that the UN would provide for the refugees for a period of five years while working to relocate them, but the Arab states refused to sign, and demanded there be no time limit and no efforts to relocate the refugees, thus the term, until a durable solution be found, was entered into the document, and to the Arabs in 1949 a durable solution meant the destruction of Israel, meaning the Palestinian refugees will remain refugees until the end of time or the destruction of Israel, whichever comes first.

This change from the first proposal for UNRWA was a huge victory for the Arab states that had just been so soundly humiliated by the Israeli military in their failed invasion of Israel, but it has proved to be a disaster for the refugees, who under the original proposal would have had the opportunity to relocate to other countries in which they might have led safer and more prosperous lives. Now, they are held hostage by the Arab states to be used as a propaganda tool against Israel, and these Arab states are further incentivized to to abuse the refugees because if they allow them to become citizens, UNRWA will stop pouring money into their economies.

What are the descendants of refugees if not also refugees? Presently, they are stateless people, which is an inconvenience, but after all, what are the benefits of being a Somali citizen? The UN could easily provide these descendants of refugees with a better future by offering the designation of citizens of the world and providing them with UN ID's and travel documents to overcome the inconveniences of being stateless.

Too often bureaucracies, even well intentioned bureaucracies, tend to prioritize sustaining the bureaucracy above the interests of the people they are serving, so while the humane thing to do in situations where no local resolution to the refugee problem is likely, the UN should offer the opportunity and assistance to relocate to other countries which will offer them the opportunity for citizenship, but under its mandate, UNRWA is not permitted to and UNHCR seems reluctant to, the beneficiaries of these bureaucracies are offered no relief beyond sustenance.

 

[rylah]

Lately, I've been reading alot about Napoleon. During his time, Belgium wasn't really independent yet, but there was a country called Westphalia. Today there's no Westphalia but there is a Belgium. And South Sudan became a country only a couple of years ago. In other words, countries come and go all the time.

Nimrod also thought that the state was everything. Then he was told:

"You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And was nevermore.

Never mind with your cryptic statements. They are narrow minded and not very deep. I remember when I was a student in Bar Ilan in 1982, and took a bus to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. As I got off the bus, a smiling stranger met me and proceeded to take me all around the tombs. It was an hour before I found out he was an Arab. I wore a kippa, so he knew I was Jewish right away. And here in NY, I worked with an Arab who used to call me "Cousin." Not all Arabs are animals.

No one said that they were.

And.

There's nothing cryptic about you bowing to the state. Kapos did as well. Bolsheviks also.

Guys guys...

Instead of wasting time arguing about those whom the Torah calls 'no-people',
You could make Aliyah and vote in the next elections this spring.

Or before voting, join the ongoing discussions about Parliamentary Monarchy,
then instead of arguing about "bowing to state", You can argue who makes the King's Bracha and who answers Amen.

The Arabs... once relieved of the burden of playing the role the West projects on them, and responsibility for creating something they neither want nor know how, will have less psychological obstacles fitting into a power structure, an environment for which they've been wired and used to in the middle east most naturally.

All I'm saying we might not need another '67 to order things in their place,
just look at all the Arabs gathering around Rabbi Zamir Cohen...

I already have and do. Now I just come back to Canada for pension purposes and to visit.

Our left are somewhat better since they know the danger. The Western leftist Jews are far more philosophical about the danger.

js

Baruch Shuvcha Tzadik!

As regarding leftist Jews in the West, first of all there's a whole different spectrum of Judaism abroad - if in Israel, and I'll exaggerate to make a point, we're merely religious or secular, there they're confused by various new brands (conservative/progressive/reform and what else) of this and that Judaism, that to me seems to survive the "market" only as philosophical alternative, to acknowledging they're bound by commandments that can only be fulfilled in the land.

There stands a clear contradiction at this pivotal point of history, and all these trends are like psychological bandages used to distract from reality.

The question is rather how do WE assume the responsibility and burst that bubble?