aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
Is the Right of Return an Intergenerational Right?
- Thread starter Shusha
- Start date
Oh show me that one in whatever legal convention you can find it ;--)
No other group enjoys any semblance of return for generations to come. Not only that but ONLY palestinains have such a ludicrous definition of refugee. Basically anyone displaced by the war of independence is considered a refugee. Lets look at the original definition and then we can take it from there give that its grown to include virtually anyone who wants to walk into a UNWRA refugee administration building and ask for help
Quote
OK I don't normally use such strong language, but the best description I can give of the previous is "pure and contemptible bull shit.
taken one at a time
1)
Palestinian designation is not based on nationality. It is based on location.
2)
See #1
3)
palestine was never a country previous to the creation of the state of Jordan. The palestinian are welcome to return to Jordan whenever they chose, assuming the Jordanians will honor international law and allow them to.
4)
Falsely assumes that all palestinians are civilians when its obvious a significant number are combatants and descendants of combatants in which case they are not refugees.
5)
In which case Israel is not required to take refugees that Jordan is required under your own purported regulations to accept.
6)
again requires a country or nationality, palestinians have neither.
7)
unsubstantiated nonsense
8)
unsubstantiated nonsense
Actually its all unsubstantiated nonsense but thats kinda par for the course.
In the end not one of these claims is referenced within any legal statute, either UN ICL IHL or otherwise. Not a substantiated claim in the pile. Once again while claiming legal precedent, you provide not a single substantiating citation or reference that supports what can only be said to be complete hyperbole
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
OK I don't normally use such strong language, but the best description I can give of the previous is "pure and contemptible bull shit.
taken one at a time
1)
Palestinian designation is not based on nationality. It is based on location.
2)
See #1
3)
palestine was never a country previous to the creation of the state of Jordan. The palestinian are welcome to return to Jordan whenever they chose, assuming the Jordanians will honor international law and allow them to.
4)
Falsely assumes that all palestinians are civilians when its obvious a significant number are combatants and descendants of combatants in which case they are not refugees.
5)
In which case Israel is not required to take refugees that Jordan is required under your own purported regulations to accept.
6)
again requires a country or nationality, palestinians have neither.
7)
unsubstantiated nonsense
8)
unsubstantiated nonsense
Actually its all unsubstantiated nonsense but thats kinda par for the course.
In the end not one of these claims is referenced within any legal statute, either UN ICL IHL or otherwise. Not a substantiated claim in the pile. Once again while claiming legal precedent, you provide not a single substantiating citation or reference that supports what can only be said to be complete hyperbole
The British 1925 Order in Council that applied Palestinian citizenship to the inhabitants of Palestine makes all of this Hasbara troll's nonsense rubbish.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Are you Phoeny? Are you Phoeny's sock puppet? I haven't seen his posts lately, but I've seen a lot of yours and you fit his MO. Plus, the only poster who makes more irrational statements than you, is Phoeny.OK I don't normally use such strong language, but the best description I can give of the previous is "pure and contemptible bull shit.
taken one at a time
1)
Palestinian designation is not based on nationality. It is based on location.
2)
See #1
3)
palestine was never a country previous to the creation of the state of Jordan. The palestinian are welcome to return to Jordan whenever they chose, assuming the Jordanians will honor international law and allow them to.
4)
Falsely assumes that all palestinians are civilians when its obvious a significant number are combatants and descendants of combatants in which case they are not refugees.
5)
In which case Israel is not required to take refugees that Jordan is required under your own purported regulations to accept.
6)
again requires a country or nationality, palestinians have neither.
7)
unsubstantiated nonsense
8)
unsubstantiated nonsense
Actually its all unsubstantiated nonsense but thats kinda par for the course.
In the end not one of these claims is referenced within any legal statute, either UN ICL IHL or otherwise. Not a substantiated claim in the pile. Once again while claiming legal precedent, you provide not a single substantiating citation or reference that supports what can only be said to be complete hyperbole
Also, are you color blind? Because you keep saying I don't provide citations, when I've been providing them all along. Click the "red" words. That's the citation, asshole.
You're also a major ******* hypocrite. Talking about others not providing legal statutes to back up their claims, when you haven't provided shit!
The picture is coming into focus.......................YOU'RE A TROLL!
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,366
- 4,876
- 1,815
That is a key point.
OK I don't normally use such strong language, but the best description I can give of the previous is "pure and contemptible bull shit.
taken one at a time
1)
Palestinian designation is not based on nationality. It is based on location.
2)
See #1
3)
palestine was never a country previous to the creation of the state of Jordan. The palestinian are welcome to return to Jordan whenever they chose, assuming the Jordanians will honor international law and allow them to.
4)
Falsely assumes that all palestinians are civilians when its obvious a significant number are combatants and descendants of combatants in which case they are not refugees.
5)
In which case Israel is not required to take refugees that Jordan is required under your own purported regulations to accept.
6)
again requires a country or nationality, palestinians have neither.
7)
unsubstantiated nonsense
8)
unsubstantiated nonsense
Actually its all unsubstantiated nonsense but thats kinda par for the course.
In the end not one of these claims is referenced within any legal statute, either UN ICL IHL or otherwise. Not a substantiated claim in the pile. Once again while claiming legal precedent, you provide not a single substantiating citation or reference that supports what can only be said to be complete hyperbole
The British 1925 Order in Council that applied Palestinian citizenship to the inhabitants of Palestine makes all of this Hasbara troll's nonsense rubbish.
Start @ 41:20
Are you Phoeny? Are you Phoeny's sock puppet? I haven't seen his posts lately, but I've seen a lot of yours and you fit his MO. Plus, the only poster who makes more irrational statements than you, is Phoeny.OK I don't normally use such strong language, but the best description I can give of the previous is "pure and contemptible bull shit.
taken one at a time
1)
Palestinian designation is not based on nationality. It is based on location.
2)
See #1
3)
palestine was never a country previous to the creation of the state of Jordan. The palestinian are welcome to return to Jordan whenever they chose, assuming the Jordanians will honor international law and allow them to.
4)
Falsely assumes that all palestinians are civilians when its obvious a significant number are combatants and descendants of combatants in which case they are not refugees.
5)
In which case Israel is not required to take refugees that Jordan is required under your own purported regulations to accept.
6)
again requires a country or nationality, palestinians have neither.
7)
unsubstantiated nonsense
8)
unsubstantiated nonsense
Actually its all unsubstantiated nonsense but thats kinda par for the course.
In the end not one of these claims is referenced within any legal statute, either UN ICL IHL or otherwise. Not a substantiated claim in the pile. Once again while claiming legal precedent, you provide not a single substantiating citation or reference that supports what can only be said to be complete hyperbole
Also, are you color blind? Because you keep saying I don't provide citations, when I've been providing them all along. Click the "red" words. That's the citation, asshole.
You're also a major ******* hypocrite. Talking about others not providing legal statutes to back up their claims, when you haven't provided shit!
The picture is coming into focus.......................YOU'RE A TROLL!
When your argument breaks down into profane laced verbosity then its pretty clear you have no argument at all and you have nothing further of any intelligence to add.
Sad really that the revisionists are so easily brought to such a state with the simple application of fact.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, Boston1, et al,
Well, if the "Right of Return" (RoR) --- ALWAYS --- applied to refugees and their descendants; where did it come from?
Of the 18 Documents (9 human rights treaties and the Optional Protocol to the CAT --- and 8 other Optional Protocols) that are listed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as the core international human rights instruments, the UDHR is not listed among them.
(REFERENCES)
The International Bill of Human Rights
History and the Right of Return in Israel-Palestine
Foreign Policy in Focus, By David Benkof, January 23, 2014.
In a January 11th address, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas took an unprecedented step by declaring the right of return to be a “personal decision” for each Palestinian (similar language used by Count Bernadotte in the after the outbreak of hostilities in 1948): “Neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor , nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return,” he said.” Days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared “no room to maneuver” on the refugee issue, and an aide called the issue a “nonstarter” that “is not going to happen.”
(COMMENT)
The Palestinian RoR is not really articulated in Law until well after the 1967 War. The UDHR never became law (and never really address the RoR in terms of a refugee), and the CCPR and CESCR did not come into force until 1976; a decade after the Six-Day War.
But it is clear that the RoR does not originate and mean the same thing to all people. Nor does the term "refugee" mean the same thing to all people.
“Right of Return” Is Not About “Refugees”
RICK RICHMAN / MAR. 23, 2014
A Jewish State,”the Wall Street Journal notes that “the right of return, with its implicit promise to eliminate Israel, is the centerpiece of the conflict” between Israelis and Arabs. The Journal observes that it is a “right” recognized “for no other refugee group in the world,” and that its acceptance by Israel would risk “a demographic time bomb that could turn the country into another Lebanon, sectarian and bloody.” The Journal explains the Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state as follows: “As to why Mr. Abbas won’t accept a Jewish state, it’s because doing so means relinquishing what Palestinians call the ‘right of return.’”
The RoR is a political gimmick. A gimmick to eradicate the Jewish State that protects and perseveres the Jewish Culture under international law by trying to set the conditions for an Arab Takeover. This is not the original intent when the Allied Powers first agreed on the concept of a Jewish National Home; nor was it a reaffirmation of the intent by the Allied Powers (a quarter century later) after the horrific outcome of the Holocaust that began, just as the Hostile Arab Palestinians are attempting to do today, and trying to make it look international legitimate under the falsest of all colors of law.
Political entities don't want to say it; and they don't want to offend the radicalized Islamics Jihadist that might spark any round of terrorist attacks. But the fact of the matter is, the weight of the Islamic Fundamentalist are coercing the member of the international communities to look the other way, just as it started in Germany, in 1933 (8 decades ago) with the anti-Jewish boycotts (BDS), staged anti-Jewish events, and enacted anti-Jewish legislation in the UN; and of course the attack on synagogues worshippers, the unarmed civilians, and the kidnap and murder of citizens. ALL under the color of International Law. I was an Arab League orchestrated assault that began on 15 May 1948 when the armed forces of five Arab Nations attacked the State of Israel, and then whined and complained every since that they did not achieve the annihilation of the Jewish State.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, if the "Right of Return" (RoR) --- ALWAYS --- applied to refugees and their descendants; where did it come from?
Of the 18 Documents (9 human rights treaties and the Optional Protocol to the CAT --- and 8 other Optional Protocols) that are listed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as the core international human rights instruments, the UDHR is not listed among them.
(REFERENCES)
The International Bill of Human Rights
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
History and the Right of Return in Israel-Palestine
Foreign Policy in Focus, By David Benkof, January 23, 2014.
In a January 11th address, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas took an unprecedented step by declaring the right of return to be a “personal decision” for each Palestinian (similar language used by Count Bernadotte in the after the outbreak of hostilities in 1948): “Neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor , nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return,” he said.” Days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared “no room to maneuver” on the refugee issue, and an aide called the issue a “nonstarter” that “is not going to happen.”
“The choice is yours. You want to return? You will return. You don’t? You’re free to remain; there is compensation and other details … I just wanted to remark on this point, that the right of return is a personal right. Even a father cannot forgo his children’s right.”
(COMMENT)
The Palestinian RoR is not really articulated in Law until well after the 1967 War. The UDHR never became law (and never really address the RoR in terms of a refugee), and the CCPR and CESCR did not come into force until 1976; a decade after the Six-Day War.
But it is clear that the RoR does not originate and mean the same thing to all people. Nor does the term "refugee" mean the same thing to all people.
“Right of Return” Is Not About “Refugees”
RICK RICHMAN / MAR. 23, 2014
A Jewish State,”the Wall Street Journal notes that “the right of return, with its implicit promise to eliminate Israel, is the centerpiece of the conflict” between Israelis and Arabs. The Journal observes that it is a “right” recognized “for no other refugee group in the world,” and that its acceptance by Israel would risk “a demographic time bomb that could turn the country into another Lebanon, sectarian and bloody.” The Journal explains the Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state as follows: “As to why Mr. Abbas won’t accept a Jewish state, it’s because doing so means relinquishing what Palestinians call the ‘right of return.’”
The RoR is a political gimmick. A gimmick to eradicate the Jewish State that protects and perseveres the Jewish Culture under international law by trying to set the conditions for an Arab Takeover. This is not the original intent when the Allied Powers first agreed on the concept of a Jewish National Home; nor was it a reaffirmation of the intent by the Allied Powers (a quarter century later) after the horrific outcome of the Holocaust that began, just as the Hostile Arab Palestinians are attempting to do today, and trying to make it look international legitimate under the falsest of all colors of law.
Political entities don't want to say it; and they don't want to offend the radicalized Islamics Jihadist that might spark any round of terrorist attacks. But the fact of the matter is, the weight of the Islamic Fundamentalist are coercing the member of the international communities to look the other way, just as it started in Germany, in 1933 (8 decades ago) with the anti-Jewish boycotts (BDS), staged anti-Jewish events, and enacted anti-Jewish legislation in the UN; and of course the attack on synagogues worshippers, the unarmed civilians, and the kidnap and murder of citizens. ALL under the color of International Law. I was an Arab League orchestrated assault that began on 15 May 1948 when the armed forces of five Arab Nations attacked the State of Israel, and then whined and complained every since that they did not achieve the annihilation of the Jewish State.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think before we can address the revisionist views concerning any kind of RIGHT of return, its important to establish who is ELIGIBLE to return in the event an agreement is ever reached between the parties involved.
From
Legal Aspects of the Palestinian Refugee Question, by Ruth ...
Quote
Who is a Refugee?
The question arises whether all those registered with UNRWA should be considered as refugees. The 1951-1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees4 has adopted the following definition:
...[A]ny person who: (2) owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...
There is no mention in this definition of descendents. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who, inter alia, "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."5
Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. However, the Arab states managed to exclude the Palestinians from that definition, by introducing the following provision into the 1951-1967 Refugees Convention:
This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection and assistance...6
In no official document have the Palestinian refugees been defined, and UNRWA has been adopting varying definitions, such as:
A Palestinian refugee is a person whose normal residence was Palestine for a minimum of two years preceding the conflict in 1948, and who, as a result of this conflict, lost both his home and his means of livelihood and took refuge in one of the countries where UNRWA provides relief. Refugees within this definition and the direct descendants of such refugees are eligible for Agency assistance if they are: registered with UNRWA; living in the area of UNRWA operations; and in need.7
This is a very broad definition under which the number of refugees constantly increases. It may be appropriate for UNRWA purposes in order to decide who qualifies for assistance, but it is hardly suitable for other purposes. It follows that the parties should agree on a more suitable definition.
End Quote
So not only does the UN not provide a viable and legal definition of who a palestinian refugee is but we still have the issue of combatants and their descendants within the present group the UN assists in the middle east and tend to get lumped under the heading of refugees but in fact are not. Which is illegal given that there are laws of neutrality the UN is supposed to be adhering to but can't be if its lending aid to combatants. Food medicine, shelter, providing staging areas, return of missiles military education all are considered aid.
From
Legal Aspects of the Palestinian Refugee Question, by Ruth ...
Quote
Who is a Refugee?
The question arises whether all those registered with UNRWA should be considered as refugees. The 1951-1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees4 has adopted the following definition:
...[A]ny person who: (2) owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...
There is no mention in this definition of descendents. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who, inter alia, "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."5
Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. However, the Arab states managed to exclude the Palestinians from that definition, by introducing the following provision into the 1951-1967 Refugees Convention:
This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection and assistance...6
In no official document have the Palestinian refugees been defined, and UNRWA has been adopting varying definitions, such as:
A Palestinian refugee is a person whose normal residence was Palestine for a minimum of two years preceding the conflict in 1948, and who, as a result of this conflict, lost both his home and his means of livelihood and took refuge in one of the countries where UNRWA provides relief. Refugees within this definition and the direct descendants of such refugees are eligible for Agency assistance if they are: registered with UNRWA; living in the area of UNRWA operations; and in need.7
This is a very broad definition under which the number of refugees constantly increases. It may be appropriate for UNRWA purposes in order to decide who qualifies for assistance, but it is hardly suitable for other purposes. It follows that the parties should agree on a more suitable definition.
End Quote
So not only does the UN not provide a viable and legal definition of who a palestinian refugee is but we still have the issue of combatants and their descendants within the present group the UN assists in the middle east and tend to get lumped under the heading of refugees but in fact are not. Which is illegal given that there are laws of neutrality the UN is supposed to be adhering to but can't be if its lending aid to combatants. Food medicine, shelter, providing staging areas, return of missiles military education all are considered aid.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
**** you, you arrogant piece of shit.
You think its okay to shoot at people fishing and collectively punishing an entire population of people, but if I use the f-word, you get aggravated! There's definitely something wrong with that picture. I find your lack of morality profane and I find your statements quite irrational.
You think the presence of profanity determines whether an argument is valid or not? And judging from how few you address, how do you even know what an argument is?
The Palestinian's (who were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorists), have the RoR; European Jews (who migrated into Palestine after WWI), do not.
Well that wasn't very nice.
The term tantrum comes to mind but I think I'll just skip any kind of engagement or counterproductive immaturities and simply apply a little fact again in order to both prove your view once again demonstrably wrong but also maintain a civil tone even in the presence of the uncivilized.
From
Palestinian refugees and the right of return | AFSC @afsc_org
Quote
The first major UN resolution that refers to the Palestinian refugees is Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, adopted by the General Assembly.12 This resolution established a Conciliation Commission for Palestine and instructed it to "take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them." Paragraph 11 deals with the refugees:
The General Assembly...resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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...
Though the Arab states originally rejected the resolution, they later relied on it heavily and have considered it as recognition of a wholesale right of repatriation.
End Quote
Note the statement "at the earliest practicable date".
Until the palestinians end the violence and end the war it is not practicable to allow any form of return.
Note that the resolution does not make return a right.
Note that the resolution apples to both Judaic and Arab refugees under the UNWRA definition of a palestinian refugee. as well as subsequent definitions.
Note that compensation is to be paid by the governments responsible.
The following Arab states declared war on May 15 1948 and are, as the instigators, responsible for the refugee compensation
Egypt Jordan Iraq Syria Lebanon
fanger
Gold Member
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews
Move allows descendant of Jews expelled from Iberian country in 1492 to seek dual Spanish nationality.
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews
Expelled Muslims need not apply
Move allows descendant of Jews expelled from Iberian country in 1492 to seek dual Spanish nationality.
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews
Expelled Muslims need not apply
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
The Jews were forcibly expelled, and the story is almost three years old now
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ic-Jews-expelled-500-years-ago-to-return.html
Sephardic Jews invited back to Spain after 500 years - BBC News
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,207
- 3,632
- 290
- Thread starter
- #34
Do you not see the moral inequality of applying human rights to one group while denying them to another?
If it is an intergenerational right -- must it not apply to all groups? If not, why not? What criteria do you use to determine which groups have human rights and which groups do not? Think carefully, because I am going to challenge you on it.
What I think you are doing is pre-determining that the Palestinians have rights and that the Jewish people do not for reasons of prejudice and then trying to invent or create a criteria which excuses the denial of rights to the Jewish people. Rather than building a fair and useful set of criteria that can then be applied to all people.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
The state of Israel was not created until 1948.
Therefore, no one can claim to be nationals of that country before 1948, because the nation did not exist.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Why do you think its okay to shoot people fishing?
LOL
Yours is not a source,, its a picture. Now if you'd listed its SOURCE you might have something, but you once again failed to identify where you got the PICTURE from.
Try that on a paper sometime and see if you ever get published ;--)
PS
Can anyone make out what that PICTURE says, its all blurry like its been manipulated or photoshopped one too many times
OH please
From
Creation of Israel, 1948 - 1945–1952 - Milestones - Office of ...
Quote
MILESTONES: 1945–1952
Creation of Israel, 1948
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.
End Quote.
I wonder if you are going to be adult enough to admit when you are wrong.
Last edited:
fanger
Gold Member
Muslims were also ¨forcibly expelled¨ from Spain, what happens to their right of return
There is no "right" of return. Its a construct of palestinian rhetoric and revisionists
an interesting read
The People of Nowhere - Palestine - Israel Journal of ...
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Do Komodo Dragons kill by bacteria or Venom? Or???- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
-
