I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?

[Roudy]

And no one counts those who were driven out from Arab countries before 1948.

Please count them. What do you have?

When will they get their lives, properties, assets, and other things of material or emotional value that Arab IslamoNazi animals took? Or did you forget that it was the Nazi Palestinian Mufti that convinced the Arab leaders to commit the true ethnic cleansing that occured in jews of the region.

 

[abi]

Greek Citizenship Code Chapter A ACQUISITION OF GREEK CITIZENSHIP I. De Iure, By Birth Article 1 1. A child of a Greek father or a Greek mother acquires Greek Citizenship by birth.

This is the same for international law, correct? Just the child, yes?

This can be passed on indefinitely from generation to generation regardless of residence.

Where does it say that? Not that that matters for international law, right?

 

[Roudy]

I have is stories from my family...

Because it never happened, certsinly not to any large degree. Actual histrory prior to zionism shows the opposite.

Now, why can Jews return (except black Jews) and Palestinians cannot?

Actually it happened, and to a very large degree, much more than the hoax of the cause you whine about. Muslim animals managed to effectively remove most of the indigenous Jewish population from their lands. But the Middle Eastern Jews moved on, as they always do, rolled up their sleeves and built new successful lives in other lands, including right here in the USA.

 

[Roudy]

The right of return in IHL is and has always been the right to return to your country of origin. It is really very simple and hardly worth a thread. In this, a civil war, the Jewish people have the right to return to Israel. And the Arab Palestinians have the right (will have the right) to return to Arab Palestine.

A civil war is not what we call it when an army from another continent conquers a people far away.

Civil war is what happened in the holy land, and the Arabs lost. Keep up.

 

[abi]

Civil war is what happened in the holy land, and the Arabs lost. Keep up.

By definition, a civil war cannot occur between parties from two different continents. That is clear.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure can. Israel Law of Return 5 July 1950. I can cite similar laws for about a dozen countries.

I searched and didn't see any. Have a link?

Greece:

Greek Citizenship Code Chapter A ACQUISITION OF GREEK CITIZENSHIP I. De Iure, By Birth Article 1 1. A child of a Greek father or a Greek mother acquires Greek Citizenship by birth.

This can be passed on indefinitely from generation to generation regardless of residence.

It doesn't mention any restrictions based on race or religion.

Fail.

 

[Roudy]

Civil war is what happened in the holy land, and the Arabs lost. Keep up.

By definition, a civil war cannot occur between parties from two different continents. That is clear.

A civil war did occur, Arab animals who did not control or own the land for the last 700 years tried to commit a second holocaust on Jews in their own holyland, a civil war erupted, and the Arabs got their assess kicked. The refugees from this failed attempt were kept by two of the attackers, Egypt and Jordan, in concentration camp conditions in the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a mention of this fictional "Palestine" by ANYBODY, then the Arabs tried to kill the Jews once again, and this time they lost the lands they occupied for 20 years.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ et al,

First: I think that our friend "Shusha" in Posting #24 is thinking in the right direction.

The "Right of Return" is one of the two major issues that separate the Israelis from the Arab Palestinians the other being the recognition of "Israel as a Jewish State".

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

​

As you can see, the Arab Palestinian must

• "Wish to return"
• "Live at peace with its neighbors"
​

While there are many that say they want to return, the issue of "peace and the two-state solution" becomes a critical roadblock.

"A September 2015 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, the leading social research organization in the Palestinian territories, found that a majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution. When asked about their preferred alternate ways to establish an independent Palestinian state, 42% called for “armed action.” Only 29% favored “negotiation” or some sort of peaceful resolution." SOURCE: BESA

​

Since the Resolution 194 (III) from 1948, the Palestinians appeared to make peace overtures, but nothing lasting. The The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1968, stated categorically that:

Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) is indivisible and an integral part of the Arab nation. The PLO claim to possess the legal right to the entire territory (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) and to self-determination after the completion of the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. This is a clear threat. And the PLO (and the Islamic Resistance Movement) assert that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; and further assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.
​

BUT, the time has long past that any assurance made by the Arab Palestinians for peace is "questionable" at best and totally unreliable. Most Arab Palestinians from outside of Israel (realistically) come with a certain internal security risk attached. In small numbers, the vetting might be manageable. But in large numbers, becomes a serious threat in that vetting processes become resource depleted.

Some people mention that the UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40 (1985) and UN Resolution. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 (A/RES/67/115 14 January 2013) and subsequent hostilities, in which one relates to voluntary repatriation and the to the "Right of Return" relative to the displaced in the 1967 War.

The UNHCR EC #40 is not really applicable to the sovereign territory inside Israeli boundaries. Under Article 2(7) of the Charter that is a domestic matter. Neither the Exec Conclusion of the Resolution 67/115 (2013) are binding requirements that were created many years after the event.

Relative to

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention ※→

• Deportations of Arab Palestinians from occupied Palestinian territory to the territory of Israel.
• Israel shall not deport or transfer parts of Israeli civilian population into the occupied Palestinian territory.
​

Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ※→ “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.

• ' Unlawful deportation or transfer. ' -- This refers to breaches of the provisions of Articles 45 [ Link ](Transfer to another Power) and Article 49 [ Link ] . The unhappy experiences of the Second World War have made it necessary to prohibit deportation completely in this Convention. In the same way, transfers are forbidden except in cases where the safety of the protected persons may make them absolutely necessary. Provisions doubtless do exist in the national penal codes which would enable these breaches to be punished by analogy: coercion or deprivation of personal liberty are quite common examples, but in this particular case the coercion is exercised by the authorities and it is not, therefore, easy to deal with it by analogy with offences against ordinary law. These breaches should therefore be the subject of special provisions.
​

Some resort to the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Often referred to as Resolution 217 A (III). The UDHR never went into force as a binding document. When the UDHR is mentioned it general use Article 13(2): "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." While many of the rights mentioned in the UDHR were contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which went into force in March 1976, it did not contain this "right." The compromise language says, (very tricky) "Article 12(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived (on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) of the right to enter his own country." Nothing about the objection is arbitrary.

The international law which might apply to future cases (ICCPR of 1976) went into force a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War; so it cannot be retroactively applied. And even if it was retroactively applied, the "Right of Return" is NOT implicitly or explicitly guaranteed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ et al,

View attachment 166647 First: I think that our friend "Shusha" in Posting #24 is thinking in the right direction.

The "Right of Return" is one of the two major issues that separate the Israelis from the Arab Palestinians the other being the recognition of "Israel as a Jewish State".

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

​

As you can see, the Arab Palestinian must

• "Wish to return"
• "Live at peace with its neighbors"
​

While there aare many that say they want to return, the issue of "peace and the two-state solution" becomes a critical roadblock.

"A September 2015 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, the leading social research organization in the Palestinian territories, found that a majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution. When asked about their preferred alternate ways to establish an independent Palestinian state, 42% called for “armed action.” Only 29% favored “negotiation” or some sort of peaceful resolution." SOURCE: BESA

​

Since the Resolution 194 (III) from 1948, the Palestinians appeared to make peace overtures, but nothing lasting. The The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1968, stated categorically that:

Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) is indivisible and an integral part of the Arab nation. The PLO claim to possess the legal right to the entire territory (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) and to self-determination after the completion of the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. This is a clear threat. And the PLO (and the Islamic Resistance Movement) assert that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; and further assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.
​

BUT, the time has long past that any assurance made by the Arab Palestinians for peace is "questionable" at best and totally unreliable. Most Arab Palestinians from outside of Israel (realistically) come with a certain internal security risk attached. In small numbers, the vetting might be manageable. But in large numbers, becomes a serious threat in that vetting processes become resource depleted.

Some people mention that the UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40 (1985) and UN Resolution. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 (A/RES/67/115 14 January 2013) and subsequent hostilities, in which one relates to voluntary repatriation and the to the "Right of Return" relative to the displaced in the 1967 War.

The UNHCR EC #40 is not really applicable to the sovereign territory inside Israeli boundaries. Under Article 2(7) of the Charter that is a domestic matter. Neither the Exec Conclusion of the Resolution 67/115 (2013) are binding requirements that were created many years after the event.

Relative to

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention ※→

• Deportations of Arab Palestinians from occupied Palestinian territory to the territory of Israel.
• Israel shall not deport or transfer parts of Israeli civilian population into the occupied Palestinian territory.​

Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ※→ “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.

• ' Unlawful deportation or transfer. ' -- This refers to breaches of the provisions of Articles 45 [ Link ](Transfer to another Power) and Article 49 [ Link ] . The unhappy experiences of the Second World War have made it necessary to prohibit deportation completely in this Convention. In the same way, transfers are forbidden except in cases where the safety of the protected persons may make them absolutely necessary. Provisions doubtless do exist in the national penal codes which would enable these breaches to be punished by analogy: coercion or deprivation of personal liberty are quite common examples, but in this particular case the coercion is exercised by the authorities and it is not, therefore, easy to deal with it by analogy with offences against ordinary law. These breaches should therefore be the subject of special provisions.​

Some resort to the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Often referred to as Resolution 217 A (III). The UDHR never went into force as a binding document. When the UDHR is mentioned it general use Article 13(2): "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." While many of the rights mentioned in the UDHR were contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which went into force in March 1976, it did not contain this "right." The compromise language says, (very tricky) "Article 12(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived (on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) of the right to enter his own country." Nothing about the objection is arbitrary.

The international law which might apply to future cases (ICCPR of 1976) went into force a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War; so it cannot be retroactively applied. And even if it was retroactively applied, the "Right of Return" is NOT implicitly or explicitly guaranteed.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is a long-winded way of saying international law allows for the Palestinians and their children to return and be compensated. Thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ abi, et al,

Somehow I knew it would be you.

View attachment 166647 First: I think that our friend "Shusha" in Posting #24 is thinking in the right direction.

The "Right of Return" is one of the two major issues that separate the Israelis from the Arab Palestinians the other being the recognition of "Israel as a Jewish State".

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

​

As you can see, the Arab Palestinian must

• "Wish to return"
• "Live at peace with its neighbors"
​

While there aare many that say they want to return, the issue of "peace and the two-state solution" becomes a critical roadblock.

"A September 2015 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, the leading social research organization in the Palestinian territories, found that a majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution. When asked about their preferred alternate ways to establish an independent Palestinian state, 42% called for “armed action.” Only 29% favored “negotiation” or some sort of peaceful resolution." SOURCE: BESA

​

Since the Resolution 194 (III) from 1948, the Palestinians appeared to make peace overtures, but nothing lasting. The The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1968, stated categorically that:

Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) is indivisible and an integral part of the Arab nation. The PLO claim to possess the legal right to the entire territory (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) and to self-determination after the completion of the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. This is a clear threat. And the PLO (and the Islamic Resistance Movement) assert that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; and further assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.
​

BUT, the time has long past that any assurance made by the Arab Palestinians for peace is "questionable" at best and totally unreliable. Most Arab Palestinians from outside of Israel (realistically) come with a certain internal security risk attached. In small numbers, the vetting might be manageable. But in large numbers, becomes a serious threat in that vetting processes become resource depleted.

Some people mention that the UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40 (1985) and UN Resolution. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 (A/RES/67/115 14 January 2013) and subsequent hostilities, in which one relates to voluntary repatriation and the to the "Right of Return" relative to the displaced in the 1967 War.

The UNHCR EC #40 is not really applicable to the sovereign territory inside Israeli boundaries. Under Article 2(7) of the Charter that is a domestic matter. Neither the Exec Conclusion of the Resolution 67/115 (2013) are binding requirements that were created many years after the event.

Relative to

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention ※→

• Deportations of Arab Palestinians from occupied Palestinian territory to the territory of Israel.
• Israel shall not deport or transfer parts of Israeli civilian population into the occupied Palestinian territory.
​

Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ※→ “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.

• ' Unlawful deportation or transfer. ' -- This refers to breaches of the provisions of Articles 45 [ Link ](Transfer to another Power) and Article 49 [ Link ] . The unhappy experiences of the Second World War have made it necessary to prohibit deportation completely in this Convention. In the same way, transfers are forbidden except in cases where the safety of the protected persons may make them absolutely necessary. Provisions doubtless do exist in the national penal codes which would enable these breaches to be punished by analogy: coercion or deprivation of personal liberty are quite common examples, but in this particular case the coercion is exercised by the authorities and it is not, therefore, easy to deal with it by analogy with offences against ordinary law. These breaches should therefore be the subject of special provisions.
​

Some resort to the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Often referred to as Resolution 217 A (III). The UDHR never went into force as a binding document. When the UDHR is mentioned it general use Article 13(2): "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." While many of the rights mentioned in the UDHR were contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which went into force in March 1976, it did not contain this "right." The compromise language says, (very tricky) "Article 12(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived (on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) of the right to enter his own country." Nothing about the objection is arbitrary.

The international law which might apply to future cases (ICCPR of 1976) went into force a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War; so it cannot be retroactively applied. And even if it was retroactively applied, the "Right of Return" is NOT implicitly or explicitly guaranteed.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is a long-winded way of saying international law allows for the Palestinians and their children to return and be compensated. Thanks.

(COMMENT)

No the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ abi, et al,

Somehow I knew it would be you.

View attachment 166647 First: I think that our friend "Shusha" in Posting #24 is thinking in the right direction.

The "Right of Return" is one of the two major issues that separate the Israelis from the Arab Palestinians the other being the recognition of "Israel as a Jewish State".

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

​

As you can see, the Arab Palestinian must

• "Wish to return"
• "Live at peace with its neighbors"
​

While there aare many that say they want to return, the issue of "peace and the two-state solution" becomes a critical roadblock.

"A September 2015 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, the leading social research organization in the Palestinian territories, found that a majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution. When asked about their preferred alternate ways to establish an independent Palestinian state, 42% called for “armed action.” Only 29% favored “negotiation” or some sort of peaceful resolution." SOURCE: BESA

​

Since the Resolution 194 (III) from 1948, the Palestinians appeared to make peace overtures, but nothing lasting. The The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1968, stated categorically that:

Palestine (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) is indivisible and an integral part of the Arab nation. The PLO claim to possess the legal right to the entire territory (with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) and to self-determination after the completion of the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. This is a clear threat. And the PLO (and the Islamic Resistance Movement) assert that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; and further assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.
​

BUT, the time has long past that any assurance made by the Arab Palestinians for peace is "questionable" at best and totally unreliable. Most Arab Palestinians from outside of Israel (realistically) come with a certain internal security risk attached. In small numbers, the vetting might be manageable. But in large numbers, becomes a serious threat in that vetting processes become resource depleted.

Some people mention that the UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40 (1985) and UN Resolution. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 (A/RES/67/115 14 January 2013) and subsequent hostilities, in which one relates to voluntary repatriation and the to the "Right of Return" relative to the displaced in the 1967 War.

The UNHCR EC #40 is not really applicable to the sovereign territory inside Israeli boundaries. Under Article 2(7) of the Charter that is a domestic matter. Neither the Exec Conclusion of the Resolution 67/115 (2013) are binding requirements that were created many years after the event.

Relative to

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention ※→

• Deportations of Arab Palestinians from occupied Palestinian territory to the territory of Israel.
• Israel shall not deport or transfer parts of Israeli civilian population into the occupied Palestinian territory.
​

Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ※→ “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.

• ' Unlawful deportation or transfer. ' -- This refers to breaches of the provisions of Articles 45 [ Link ](Transfer to another Power) and Article 49 [ Link ] . The unhappy experiences of the Second World War have made it necessary to prohibit deportation completely in this Convention. In the same way, transfers are forbidden except in cases where the safety of the protected persons may make them absolutely necessary. Provisions doubtless do exist in the national penal codes which would enable these breaches to be punished by analogy: coercion or deprivation of personal liberty are quite common examples, but in this particular case the coercion is exercised by the authorities and it is not, therefore, easy to deal with it by analogy with offences against ordinary law. These breaches should therefore be the subject of special provisions.
​

Some resort to the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Often referred to as Resolution 217 A (III). The UDHR never went into force as a binding document. When the UDHR is mentioned it general use Article 13(2): "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." While many of the rights mentioned in the UDHR were contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which went into force in March 1976, it did not contain this "right." The compromise language says, (very tricky) "Article 12(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived (on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) of the right to enter his own country." Nothing about the objection is arbitrary.

The international law which might apply to future cases (ICCPR of 1976) went into force a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War; so it cannot be retroactively applied. And even if it was retroactively applied, the "Right of Return" is NOT implicitly or explicitly guaranteed.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is a long-winded way of saying international law allows for the Palestinians and their children to return and be compensated. Thanks.

(COMMENT)

No the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh, lol, sorry, I didn't read that wall of text as I assumed you were another international law expert and knew what you were talking about. Okay, you are wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The assumption that they will not live in peace with their neighbors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The assumption that they will not live in peace with their neighbors.

Poor peaceful, misunderstood Muzzies.

 

[Yarddog]

About 900,000, who were expelled from Arab lands.

The Imams aren't telling you the whole story, little Islamonazi boy.

Well, the Palestinians and their children now total in the millions. Around 6 million in fact.

Jews were expelled from all over the ME and if it was 900,000 then it would also be in the millions today. The Arabs have all the ENTIRE M.E. for their own today while the only little bit the jews have the Arabs want also, so what is right about this? Judea = Jewish , its not hard to put 2 & 2 together.

 

[Correll]

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

Supporting the RIght of Return is another way of saying you don't support Israel's right to exist and want to destroy it in a genocidal bloodbath.

 

[Correll]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The assumption that they will not live in peace with their neighbors.

If, the many wars, the constant terrorism and the generations of unrelenting hostility is not evidence of ill intent,

then nothing is.


What do you want? TO have us pretend all is well and good, until the ME is a smoking charnel house?


What then? Do you apologize and admit you were wrong?


I don't know what your issue is that you want to see death and destruction, but I do not share it.


Save your sophism for someone less aware.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948 was written in the context of "promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine; as stated in the very first sentence. It is in that sense that the relationship between the Israelis (as seen in the embryonic form of 1948) and the remainder of the Palestinians was framed. THUS, the neighbor implied is Israel.

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The assumption that they will not live in peace with their neighbors.

(COMMENT)

The attitude of the intentions of the Arab Palestinians is NOT an assumption, but a prima facie case based on the the way in which they expound upon it, over and over again; especially those released to the media for propaganda purposes.

I find it enlightening to remember the words of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the representatives of the Arab Countries:

• The Jewish State which the Zionists are endeavouring to establish in Palestine is not moreover a viable State either from the political or from the economic point of view.

• Against a State established by violence the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence.

• Moreover, the foreign State on Arab territory will not in any case be able to count upon the establishment of economic or any other relations with the neighbouring Arab States.

• Any Jewish State established in Palestine would inevitably become a centre of intrigue and a rallying-point for the Zionist forces, which are to be hurled against the Arab countries. The Governments of the Arab States will not under any circumstances agree to permit the establishment of Zionism as an autonomous state on Arab territory, towards which hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants would stream.

• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. → The AHC wishes to stress the determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.​

The AHC had NO different an attitude towards the Jewish - then did the Palestinian Black Hand of the 1930's. And the attitudes stressed here, were all made publicly known in the 10 months prior to the Jewish even announcing independence. It was coercion in the most obvious diplomatic sense.

These attitudes persisted into the after the Six Day War, and persist to this day; replicated by the various Jihadists, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters operating in the immediate local.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: I can not understand the laws regarding 'Right of Return.' The hypocisy seems prodigious. Experts?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!!! There is no assumption here.

The Idea of the "Right of Return" stems back to nonbinding UN Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948. It is not a blanket "right" but carries a condition or requirement that is demanded as part of an agreement:

Nice duck.

Resolution194 is based on international law that is binding.

You can't deny people their right to return based on an assumption.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1. What assumption did you see?
Q2. What International Law is Resolution 194(III) based upon (and don't say the UDHR)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The assumption that they will not live in peace with their neighbors.

Actually, we aren't relegated to mere assumption regarding Islamist intransigence. We have 1,400 years of Islamist history to show us that Arabs-Moslems can't live in peace with each other in addition to not being able to live in peace with neighbors.
You should educate yourself to Islamist history. For the past 1,400 years, the Middle East has been defined by Arab-Moslem dictators and despots who have ravaged areas to claim their own mini-caliphates only to be ravaged by the next dictator with greater ambitions. Half of the "rightly guided" caliphs were murdered by their fellow Moslems and all of them fought wars of attrition against the competing tribe.

For some real excitement, you should educate yourself about the 1,400 year long blood feud that divides the Sunni and Shia.