Abbas says Palestinians no longer bound by pacts with Israel

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Nothing man-made in the world is perfect, to the best of my knowledge. Laws, conventions, covenants, declarations, resolutions and treaties, are not perfect. No one shoe fits all. There are some imposed restrictions which are recommendations (best practices if you will) and some which are meant to be compliance oriented.

You pick and choose which UN actions you support like a New York hustler on 5th Avenue...

(COMMENT)

The UN and its actions are received and perceived differently by various cultures, nations and people --- based on their particular and sometimes unique point of view. I always thought is was odd that UN General Assembly 194, which is the resolution that raises the "Right of Return" (RoR) was rejected by most of the Arab League members that participated in the 1948 WAR against Israel rejected the RoR Resolution. (see voting record: A/PV.186)
[Against : Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt.]

There are reasons why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) never passed into law, yet --- individually, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) did both pass into law and finally went into force in 1976. The are a number of small differences between the UDHR and the CCPR and CESCR. One of those differences is that the UDHR has Article 13 [(2) "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."] which many interpret as the first iteration of the RoR. While this is very much in dispute, neither the CESCR or the CCPR have an equivalent to Article 13(2) of the UDHR or the RoR as implied by paragraph 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

Which non-binding resolutions a country wish to embrace, or reject, should not be a political bone of contention. It is actually part and parcel of their right of self-determination; it is about how they are. It should be noted that the US Congress, British Parliament, or the Russian Federal Assembly refuses to allow the UN to dictate measure to them. Nor do the ruling bodies of the France, China or India. (Used just as examples.)

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  
  

 

[Phoenall]

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

You think maybe now the Muzlems will try to destroy Israel?
Oh wait! They'd be trying to be doing that for 60 years already.
You notice how Muslims suck at almost everything they do?
Including murdering each other?

" Right of Return" is DOA

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

Un resolutions are nothing but recommendations of action that some UN members would like to see take place, they carry no legal weight and are not worth the paper they are written on. The alleged legal scholars have been proven to be LIARS and/or Jew hating Nazis,

THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT OF RETURN AND THE WEST USES IT EVERY DAY The UK stopped muslim terrorists from returning to Britain by rescinding their passports.

You pick and choose which UN actions you support like a New York hustler on 5th Avenue...

How so when I say that all UN resolutions are worthless as they carry no weight in law, all they do is justify the existence and fat pay packets of the people employed by the UN. I would close down the UN and sell of all its assets for what good it does then start anew with a world army that would have the balls to go into places like Syria and bomb both sides into oblivion. Then help the people left rebuild with supplies being available for 12 months only. Not the 67 years the UNWRA has been supporting the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

You think maybe now the Muzlems will try to destroy Israel?
Oh wait! They'd be trying to be doing that for 60 years already.
You notice how Muslims suck at almost everything they do?
Including murdering each other?

" Right of Return" is DOA

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've watch this before.

R

Start @ 41:15
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)

The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.

There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.

• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.
​

There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."

When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've watch this before.

R

Start @ 41:15

(COMMENT)

There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)

The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.

There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.

• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.​

There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."

When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

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.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

You think maybe now the Muzlems will try to destroy Israel?
Oh wait! They'd be trying to be doing that for 60 years already.
You notice how Muslims suck at almost everything they do?
Including murdering each other?

" Right of Return" is DOA

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've watch this before.

R

Start @ 41:15

(COMMENT)

There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)

The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.

There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.

• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.​

There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."

When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

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.

From the UN that says that its resolutions are not international law as they have no legal standing. They are just recommendations of what the UN would like to see put in place. You and your esteemed professors of international law have refused to actually cite the International law and its date of implementation because none exists. Don't forget that you and this professor are only spouting your own personal views, and until every body accepts these views as true they are just personal views and not actual International law.

Now produce the actual International law signed of by the ICC/ICJ or accept that you are wrong

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've watch this before.

R

Start @ 41:15

(COMMENT)

There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)

The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.

There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.

• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.​

There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."

When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

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.

From the UN that says that its resolutions are not international law as they have no legal standing. They are just recommendations of what the UN would like to see put in place. You and your esteemed professors of international law have refused to actually cite the International law and its date of implementation because none exists. Don't forget that you and this professor are only spouting your own personal views, and until every body accepts these views as true they are just personal views and not actual International law.

Now produce the actual International law signed of by the ICC/ICJ or accept that you are wrong

From the UN that says that its resolutions are not international law as they have no legal standing. They are just recommendations of what the UN would like to see put in place.​

That is somewhat true. UN resolutions are wishful thinking. However, they frequently reference international law as the basis of those wishes.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've watch this before.

R

Start @ 41:15

(COMMENT)

There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)

The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.

There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.

• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.​

There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."

When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

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.

You know, tinmore, cutting and pasting silly YouTube videos hardly qualifies as "studying international law".

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

" Right of Return" is DOA

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

That was referenced in the video that I posted that you did not watch.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

" Right of Return" is DOA

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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[/QUOTE]

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!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I agree. Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated in law?

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the "Right of Return" has not become Customary International Law. And clearly, 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and while it does layout the general stipulation for the "Right of Return" or the alternative compensation for their losses, IT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

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

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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![/QUOTE]

Yes, they actually revolted 3 times like no other nation and kept coming back to join those who stayed, it's a thing with those Jews...where is Rome now?

So are they praying or not, or you just got confused in the usual line of lies?

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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![/QUOTE]

Yes, they actually revolted 3 times like no other nation and kept coming back to join those who stayed, it's a thing with those Jews...where is Rome now?

So are they praying or not, or you just got confused in the usual line of lies?

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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!

Yes, they actually revolted 3 times like no other nation and kept coming back to join those who stayed, it's a thing with those Jews...where is Rome now?

So are they praying or not, or you just got confused in the usual line of lies?[/QUOTE]
Rile-allah: "where is Rome now?"


Rome is at the center of European and American thought, The art, the music the architecture, the Religions even your American money is full of Roman symbols and language while Jerusalem is a shit-hole backwater to even the Rome of today.

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

Of course UN resolutions and many legal scholars disagree with you.

Do you have anyone denying the right of return in any other case but Palestine?

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

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.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. To pass into customary law, it must have a previous history of being enforced.

• The question is: When was "Right of Return" (RoR) last enforced?
​

If you repeat misinformation often enough, some people will begin to belive it.

(REFERENCE)

• The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, 1 September 2000:
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, ratified on 11 December 1948 is not a binding resolution.
• By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242, does not mention the RoR;.
• Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation. (See Voting Record A/PV.186)
• No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)

(COMMENT)

Well there are a couple of examples in the post-WW II era.

"At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees." (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)

"The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)

"Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees." (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
​

I would be interested in knowing were you think the RoR exist in International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Start @ 41:15

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

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!

 

[rylah]

Start @ 41:15

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!

Yes, they actually revolted 3 times like no other nation and kept coming back to join those who stayed, it's a thing with those Jews...where is Rome now?

So are they praying or not, or you just got confused in the usual line of lies?

You mean the Star of David, and 'In G-d we trust'...sure those all are original Roman
And where is that empire now, wasn't it a Jewish sect that conquered it from inside?

Tell me where are ALL those empires now?? Ishmael is on the way, this time will be the hardest one and the last one.