- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,307
- 4,326
- 1,815
Indeed, they do not like what they hear.True, but it is still the rule of state succession in international law.Indeed, 181 was never implemented. Did you forget?Indeed, Israel did mention resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. Resolution 181 states that all Palestinians who normally live in the territory that becomes Israel will be Israeli citizens. This is also the rule of state succession under international law. This applies to all Palestinians who became refugees.The UNGA does not have the powers to "allocate" land. If you want to go back that far you have to go back to the Jewish National Homeland's borders - which is all of Palestine except Jordan.
But, in the spirit of this thread, end the occupation means the forced implementation of 181, then?
Typical hasbara troll tactic. This is what I actually wrote:
To be clear, that's a Hasbara troll response, and no, just a return to the lands it was allocated by the U.N. and which it declared sovereignty over when it declared statehood.
Look at your own declaration of statehood; you declared sovereignty based on Resolution 181, regardless of UNGA "powers" or lack thereof.
This means that the right to return is not about immigration, it is about citizenship.
There's a reason why no one comes to you for interpretation of international law.