Israel and US discuss defunding of UNRWA

[Shusha]

The UNWRA does not define who is a refugee. It merely defines who is eligible for aid.

Perfect. Even easier to defund UNWRA then. All those who are not actually refugees no longer get aid. Those few who are can move over to the regular system.

The UNCCP already has the mandate for a durable solution.

They flopped. What makes you believe that another agency would do any better?

I DONT think another agency would necessarily do any better. (Though they could hardly do worse and it depends what you measure). I just think that all refugees should be managed by the same organization. To prevent special treatment.

 

[Roudy]

I will also add that the artificial maintenance of "actual" refugees by refusing to integrate them or resettle them is an abhorrent violation of human rights.

No country has the legal obligation to accept the nationals of another state.

And what state were "the Palestinians" citizens of?

Ya think if the animals stopped using their own schools as rocket launch sites and constantly using their own kids as human shields, this thread would even exist?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I will also add that the artificial maintenance of "actual" refugees by refusing to integrate them or resettle them is an abhorrent violation of human rights.

No country has the legal obligation to accept the nationals of another state.

And what state were "the Palestinians" citizens of?

Ya think if the animals stopped using their own schools as rocket launch sites and constantly using their own kids as human shields, this thread would even exist?

France.

 

[Hollie]

I will also add that the artificial maintenance of "actual" refugees by refusing to integrate them or resettle them is an abhorrent violation of human rights.

No country has the legal obligation to accept the nationals of another state.

And what state were "the Palestinians" citizens of?

Ya think if the animals stopped using their own schools as rocket launch sites and constantly using their own kids as human shields, this thread would even exist?

France.

Your invented "Pal'istanians" living in your invented "country of Pally'land" is a rather disturbing fantasy that consumes your every waking moment.

Myth and falsehoods are no substitute for facts and clarity of vision and thought.

 

[Humanity]

So, call Palestinians "indigenous" as well...

And THAT is you playing semantics. You want me to label Arab Palestinians indigenous, even though they do NOT meet the definition of that label, in order to create some sort of semantic equality with the Jewish people, who DO meet that definition, EVEN THOUGH I have assigned the exact same rights to both peoples.

In other words, you want me to change the label I use for people, for no practical purpose other than for you to have your need to semantics satisfied.

I don't even know why you and I are arguing this. We agree, don't we, that insisting on returning five million Arabs to Israel is going to destroy Israel and the self-determination of the Jewish State? We agree, don't we, that Arab Palestinians should not get special treatment afforded no other refugees? We agree, don't we, that UNRWA is a colossal failure which now supports the victimization and dependency of the refugees rather than permitting them to rebuild their lives with dignity?

I am trying to 'work' with you here and you are simply blocking any suggestion that Jews and Palestinians are equal by classifying them differently.

I can take a 'harder' line if you prefer and state that...

Insisting on the returning of Jews to Palestine destroyed the Palestinian self-determination.

Jews received special treatment in the creation of and the returning to Israel. Why should it be exclusively Jews receiving special treatment?

A harder line is NOT the way forward to finding a peace solution... It often feels like there is no compromising for Israel or Israel supporters... Israels way or no way!

The denial by some of the very existence of Palestinians is beyond comprehension.

 

[Shusha]

So, call Palestinians "indigenous" as well...

And THAT is you playing semantics. You want me to label Arab Palestinians indigenous, even though they do NOT meet the definition of that label, in order to create some sort of semantic equality with the Jewish people, who DO meet that definition, EVEN THOUGH I have assigned the exact same rights to both peoples.

In other words, you want me to change the label I use for people, for no practical purpose other than for you to have your need to semantics satisfied.

I don't even know why you and I are arguing this. We agree, don't we, that insisting on returning five million Arabs to Israel is going to destroy Israel and the self-determination of the Jewish State? We agree, don't we, that Arab Palestinians should not get special treatment afforded no other refugees? We agree, don't we, that UNRWA is a colossal failure which now supports the victimization and dependency of the refugees rather than permitting them to rebuild their lives with dignity?

I am trying to 'work' with you here and you are simply blocking any suggestion that Jews and Palestinians are equal by classifying them differently.

I can take a 'harder' line if you prefer and state that...

Insisting on the returning of Jews to Palestine destroyed the Palestinian self-determination.

Jews received special treatment in the creation of and the returning to Israel. Why should it be exclusively Jews receiving special treatment?

A harder line is NOT the way forward to finding a peace solution... It often feels like there is no compromising for Israel or Israel supporters... Israels way or no way!

The denial by some of the very existence of Palestinians is beyond comprehension.

There is nothing 'hard' about my line. I am affording Israelis and Palestinians exactly the same legal rights, the same self determination, the same treatment, the same equality.

I'm certainly in no way denying the existence of either.

And I often advocate for compromise. But I'm not going to change the meaning of words to placate someone's invention of an inequality which does not actually exist.

As long as I insist on equality, and I do, it's just word games.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, call Palestinians "indigenous" as well...

And THAT is you playing semantics. You want me to label Arab Palestinians indigenous, even though they do NOT meet the definition of that label, in order to create some sort of semantic equality with the Jewish people, who DO meet that definition, EVEN THOUGH I have assigned the exact same rights to both peoples.

In other words, you want me to change the label I use for people, for no practical purpose other than for you to have your need to semantics satisfied.

I don't even know why you and I are arguing this. We agree, don't we, that insisting on returning five million Arabs to Israel is going to destroy Israel and the self-determination of the Jewish State? We agree, don't we, that Arab Palestinians should not get special treatment afforded no other refugees? We agree, don't we, that UNRWA is a colossal failure which now supports the victimization and dependency of the refugees rather than permitting them to rebuild their lives with dignity?

I am trying to 'work' with you here and you are simply blocking any suggestion that Jews and Palestinians are equal by classifying them differently.

I can take a 'harder' line if you prefer and state that...

Insisting on the returning of Jews to Palestine destroyed the Palestinian self-determination.

Jews received special treatment in the creation of and the returning to Israel. Why should it be exclusively Jews receiving special treatment?

A harder line is NOT the way forward to finding a peace solution... It often feels like there is no compromising for Israel or Israel supporters... Israels way or no way!

The denial by some of the very existence of Palestinians is beyond comprehension.

There is nothing 'hard' about my line. I am affording Israelis and Palestinians exactly the same legal rights, the same self determination, the same treatment, the same equality.

I'm certainly in no way denying the existence of either.

And I often advocate for compromise. But I'm not going to change the meaning of words to placate someone's invention of an inequality which does not actually exist.

As long as I insist on equality, and I do, it's just word games.

As long as I insist on equality, and I do, it's just word games.

Do you? Then you should support BDS.

BDS: A movement for freedom, justice and equality

 

[Hollie]

So, call Palestinians "indigenous" as well...

And THAT is you playing semantics. You want me to label Arab Palestinians indigenous, even though they do NOT meet the definition of that label, in order to create some sort of semantic equality with the Jewish people, who DO meet that definition, EVEN THOUGH I have assigned the exact same rights to both peoples.

In other words, you want me to change the label I use for people, for no practical purpose other than for you to have your need to semantics satisfied.

I don't even know why you and I are arguing this. We agree, don't we, that insisting on returning five million Arabs to Israel is going to destroy Israel and the self-determination of the Jewish State? We agree, don't we, that Arab Palestinians should not get special treatment afforded no other refugees? We agree, don't we, that UNRWA is a colossal failure which now supports the victimization and dependency of the refugees rather than permitting them to rebuild their lives with dignity?

I am trying to 'work' with you here and you are simply blocking any suggestion that Jews and Palestinians are equal by classifying them differently.

I can take a 'harder' line if you prefer and state that...

Insisting on the returning of Jews to Palestine destroyed the Palestinian self-determination.

Jews received special treatment in the creation of and the returning to Israel. Why should it be exclusively Jews receiving special treatment?

A harder line is NOT the way forward to finding a peace solution... It often feels like there is no compromising for Israel or Israel supporters... Israels way or no way!

The denial by some of the very existence of Palestinians is beyond comprehension.

There is nothing 'hard' about my line. I am affording Israelis and Palestinians exactly the same legal rights, the same self determination, the same treatment, the same equality.

I'm certainly in no way denying the existence of either.

And I often advocate for compromise. But I'm not going to change the meaning of words to placate someone's invention of an inequality which does not actually exist.

As long as I insist on equality, and I do, it's just word games.

As long as I insist on equality, and I do, it's just word games.

Do you? Then you should support BDS.

BDS: A movement for freedom, justice and equality

Why would any rational person support such a hate group that is tied so closely to Islamic fascists?

 

[Challenger]

....I'll also point out that the idea of refugee status being a hereditary condition is unprecedented in history and in international law.

So you want to defund UNWRA, does that mean you are going to defund the UNHCR as well? They also state refugee status is hereditory.

Paragraph 184 of the UNHCR Handbook states: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."...Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

UNHCR Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination states:
5.1.1 "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority.""
5.1.2 "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."...http://www.unhcr.org/4317223c9.pdf

This applies to all refugees, not just Palestinians ethnically cleansed by the Zionist colonial project, and is based on current international Law.

Yes. Understood. The dependent children of actual refugees, for the purpose of family unity, are also considered refugees.

This is VERY different from the practical working definition of UNWRA which is the descendants (in perpetuity) of the original Palestinian refugees -- regardless of their individual status as actual refugees.

By "actual refugee", I mean a refugee who has not been voluntarily repatriated, not been integrated into a local community and not been resettled in a third country. The number of registered UNWRA "refugees" far exceeds the number of "actual" refugees because of the expanded definition.

There is no difference between the UNWRA and UNHCR, other than their mandates, both however, acknowledge in international law, the inter-generational aspects of a protracted regugee situation. The descendants of refugees become refugees in their own right unless they consent to resettlement in a third country, repatriation to where they or their antecedants originally came from prior to the conflict that made them refugees, or if they take citizenship of the country giving them refuge. If you "defund" or abolish UNWRA, the UNHCR will carry on in exactly the same way.

You also "forget" to mention that the UNWRA was set up in part, by the insistance of the Zionist Israeli regime, who did not want the UN to become directly involved with the Palestinian refugee problem. It's called an own goal, where I come from.

 

[montelatici]

I will also add that the artificial maintenance of "actual" refugees by refusing to integrate them or resettle them is an abhorrent violation of human rights.

No country has the legal obligation to accept the nationals of another state.

And what state were "the Palestinians" citizens of?

Ya think if the animals stopped using their own schools as rocket launch sites and constantly using their own kids as human shields, this thread would even exist?

You people are the animals.

 

[Shusha]

There is no difference between the UNWRA and UNHCR, other than their mandates, both however, acknowledge in international law, the inter-generational aspects of a protracted regugee situation.

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

The descendants of refugees become refugees in their own right unless they consent to resettlement in a third country, repatriation to where they or their antecedants originally came from prior to the conflict that made them refugees, or if they take citizenship of the country giving them refuge.

Sure. I have no issue with consent. Here's the thing though -- the UNHCR rules say that if you avail yourself of another citizenship that is consent! You have consented to end your refugee status. Therefore, of the supposed 5 or 7 million supposed Palestinian refugees worldwide, only a tiny fraction are actually still "refugees".

Now, go ahead an ask all of those actual refugees if they would prefer to stay in a walled and barbed wire prison camps in Lebanon, or if they would prefer to repatriate to Area A or if they would prefer to become Lebanese citizens or if they would prefer to be resettled in a third country. I think you will find very few of them would prefer to stay in their prison camps.

If you "defund" or abolish UNWRA, the UNHCR will carry on in exactly the same way.

It will not, since the mandate for UNHCR is to solve the problems of refugees and UNWRA's is to perpetuate them.

 

[Shusha]

We have to ask ourselves, or more importantly, ask the actual Palestinians refugees what would best serve them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

UNWRA is strictly an aid agency. It has no authority to resolve anything.

 

[Shusha]

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

UNWRA is strictly an aid agency. It has no authority to resolve anything.

And THAT is the problem.

 

[Roudy]

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

UNWRA is strictly an aid agency. It has no authority to resolve anything.

Well maybe it should make sure the schools it sets up (using US taxpayer money) for the Palestinians aren't being used as terrorist indoctrination centers and rocket launch sites. Waddaya think?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

UNWRA is strictly an aid agency. It has no authority to resolve anything.

Well maybe it should make sure the schools it sets up (using US taxpayer money) for the Palestinians aren't being used as terrorist indoctrination centers and rocket launch sites. Waddaya think?

I think you spend too much time reading Israeli propaganda.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no difference between the UNWRA and UNHCR, other than their mandates, both however, acknowledge in international law, the inter-generational aspects of a protracted regugee situation.

There is a very great difference between a mandate which intends to resolve the humanitarian crises experienced by refugees by repatriation or resettlement and one which intends to hold refugees in an unresolved humanitarian crises or to maintain aide in perpetuity.

The descendants of refugees become refugees in their own right unless they consent to resettlement in a third country, repatriation to where they or their antecedants originally came from prior to the conflict that made them refugees, or if they take citizenship of the country giving them refuge.

Sure. I have no issue with consent. Here's the thing though -- the UNHCR rules say that if you avail yourself of another citizenship that is consent! You have consented to end your refugee status. Therefore, of the supposed 5 or 7 million supposed Palestinian refugees worldwide, only a tiny fraction are actually still "refugees".

Now, go ahead an ask all of those actual refugees if they would prefer to stay in a walled and barbed wire prison camps in Lebanon, or if they would prefer to repatriate to Area A or if they would prefer to become Lebanese citizens or if they would prefer to be resettled in a third country. I think you will find very few of them would prefer to stay in their prison camps.

If you "defund" or abolish UNWRA, the UNHCR will carry on in exactly the same way.

It will not, since the mandate for UNHCR is to solve the problems of refugees and UNWRA's is to perpetuate them.

or if they would prefer to repatriate to Area A

Repatriation is to their homes and properties. None of them have homes and properties in area A.

 

[Shusha]

Repatriation is to their homes and properties. None of them have homes and properties in area A.

Repatriation is to their country of origin.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Repatriation is to their homes and properties. None of them have homes and properties in area A.

Repatriation is to their country of origin.

What country was that?

 

[abi]

Repatriation is to their country of origin.

Why should Jews return to "their country of origin?"