- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,199
- 4,289
- 1,815
Where is the rest of it? This doesn't say anything.In this Brief, the author argues that the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties had already achieved customary status (binding international law) by 1948. UN Resolution 194, therefore, simply reaffirms international legal principles that were already binding and which required states to allow refugees to return to their places of origin, and prohibited mass expulsion of persons - particularly on discriminatory grounds. UN Resolution 194's consistency with international law and practice over the past five decades further strengthens its value as a normative framework for a durable solution for Palestinian refugees today.P F Tinmore et al,
I don’t believe I had an intention of “refuting” (primary intention of proving the video to be wrong or false). I don’t start-out argumentative where it is not necessary. I merely outlined some of the factors not taken into account in the “strict compliance” concepts the video presents.
In every comment I make, there is always something left-out or truncated. You can write an Event-Encyclopedia or multi-volume study on the conflict and still leave something out. There is a limitation here.
The video presentation did not touch on why the Palestinians were displaced, or what dangers they pose to the peace and security to that landscape. It merely attempts, as my previous comment discussed, the strategy of trying to demonstrate that everything that does not agree with the Arab Palestinian view is illegal, improper or at fault in some fashion.
I think that the actually history of the Arab Palestinian and the political involvement of the Mufti to exploit religious disputes, demonstrates the weakness and failure of the radicalized Arab Palestinian as is creates an Islamic Resistance, a Jihadist Insurgency, and resort to a harmful new way of life that accelerates and embraces death and dishonors the people and the culture.
When the people of the world think of a terrorist, the picture they mentally envision is that of the Arab (bomb vest optional).
Arab Palestinians send their kids to Jihadist Summer Camp, yet parade the dead bodies of their children around when they intentionally perform military operations in a densely populated areas, and attempted to draw fire, to make a media event out of it.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:All that without refuting one word of my video.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
HAMAS Covenant
"The Islamic Land of Palestine is one and cannot be divided.
There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, between
Lod and Ramallah, between Jerusalem and Nazareth. Dividing
Palestine into cantons and giving recognition to the occupation
is prohibited by Sharia (Islamic religious law), since Palestinian
is Wakf (Islamic Trust) for all Moslems in the East and in the
West. No one has the right to give it up or to forsake it. The
liberation of Palestine is a mandatory obligation for all
Moslem and not only for our Palestinian nation.”
Shiekh Yuosouf Abu Sneina,
Official Cleric of the Al Aqsa Mosque,
Nowhere, in this reference list, does the International Body of Law, require the Jewish State of Israel to repatriate Arab-Palestinians that declared a Jihad before the Declaration of Independence of Israel. Nor does the International Body of Law, being used as a Trojan Horse, enjoin the Israeli to accept Jihadists, Fedayeen, insurgents, radical Islamist and assorted terrorists that kidnap and murder, specifically zero-in on civilians as targets of conventional and asymmetric attacks, hijackings, piracy, sabotage, bombings and other tactics that spread fear across the general population. There is no International Law that require Israel to place its citizens in jeopardy by re-admitting Arabs of Palestine that made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.
None of these laws are —- by absolute decree —- are applicable under the conditions of conflict, wherein the identified refugees wish to avail themselves of the RoR, yet have pledged an oath to open hostilities and to maintain hostilities until the Jewish National Home is removed. This oath was made in 1948, even before the the Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel; and before the Arab League Nations coordinated assault.
Most Respectfully,
R
http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf
Here's a differing opinion.
In August 2010, the position paper, “The Return of Palestinian Refugees to the State of Israel,” was published by the Metzilah Center for Zionist, Jewish, Liberal and Humanist Thought and presented to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and to other decision-makers and academic experts. The paper examined all sources in international law dealing with questions of refugee return. It also reviewed the methods recognized throughout the world for dealing with refugee problems.
International law does not obligate/recognize the legal right of Palestinian refugees to settle in Israeli territory. Such large-scale return was not standard at the time the problem emerged, and it is not used effectively today. While the issue of the refugees needs to be dealt with seriously, Israel should be careful not to recognize a right of return for refugees under international law, since this may be the basis for new legal obligations.
The JPost