Is the Right of Return an Intergenerational Right?

[Indeependent]

It was posted long ago. It is just the strange affliction that Zionists have, called cognitive dissonance.

We are quite well trained at parsing, abstraction and application.
In this case, application = suicide.

 

[montelatici]

Another Hasbara Fellowship graduate. Even if you have a large number of Goyim bamboozled, there are so many of us that are not, you haven't a chance.

 

[fanger]

The film is irrelevant Tinmore. If you are unable to prove through written legal statutes contained within international law that refugees ( worldwide or palestinian specifically ) have an inherent "right of return", then the issue is settled.

There is no right of return.

Men who write Rules,Laws and Bibles do not have more right to live on the Land than Men who have never needed to read or right

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, fanger, et al,

The "Tinmore" response is out of character to my commentary with "fanger" on the distinction between the Israeli "Law of Return" and the asserted (non-binding) UN Resolution 194 on the "Right of Return."

My response was not in the context of a comparative analysis between intergenerational laws perpetuated by blood (so-called Birthright assertions).

Additionally, my commentary addresses the dynamics or the reinterpretation of law in a post-conflict and transitional-conflict environment as to wherein (like the speakers) try to envision a regional implementation of "Ex Post Facto" Law and non-binding to a set of conditions that attempt to change the 21st Century Consequences to a new dynamic and imaginary set of timeline that doesn't exist now and never really existed. Nor can the post-conflict logic apply as if the Resolution 194 was binding, as if either UNRWA or UNHRC had enforcement authority, as if the Legal of criteria on the applications of "refugees" (even the definition) within a UNRWA realm and a UNHRC world were in agreement. The Palestinians cannot have both even if it was established prior to the events to which we try to apply them. One simply cannot theoretically roll-back the clock and attempt to apply the Laws of 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [(CCPR) entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49] to the events that occurred 10 --- 20 --- and 30 years prior. In fact the CCPR did not go into force until 1976,

Finally, the UN cannot today reset the conditions by using 21st Century International Humanitarian Law to a problem created in the early to mid 20th Century that would, in effect, conditional legal changes as an institutional punishment (a collective punishment in it self) (for example by replacing the Jewish State of Israel with a national death sentence) retroactively - in favor of belligerent "inhabitant claimants" that never lived in Israel and never lived under the Mandate --- and wanting to make excessive profits on the basis of a 21st Century perception of wrongs that may have been committed or appear to be wrong under 21st Century sensibilities.

"fanger, et al,

Any independent and sovereign nation has the absolute right to regulate it borders and immigration policy as a matter of domestic law. [Article 2(7) UN Charter]

The Law of Return Law under Domestic/Internal legislation is different AND not subject to International Law or oversight. It dates back to the

[QUOTE="Boston1, post: 13190275, member: 56420"
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF RETURN

there appears to be a right of return for jews that have never had a connection to the land in question

(COMMENT)

The policy is actually "The Law of Return, 5710-1950," (as amended). It addresses an entirely different issue.

Connection to the land has nothing to do with sovereignty and establishing absolute control. The State of Israel may set whatever criteria they want in terms of immigration. I thought it was interesting to hear that Israel accepted refugees through the UNHRC, from Bosnia and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a matter of immigration. You must have missed the video I posted earlier.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

If we completely strip the issue of the RoR from the influences of post-1948 War of Independence, and apply ONLY that logic of the post-WWII political leaders, we would find a very different environment. And even see a much different political/legal landscape of the time. The Fourth Geneva Convention was brand new, entering into force (21 October 1950) after all the 1949 Armistice Agreements had been put in place. Remember that NONE of the ten core international human rights instruments were in effect --- or entered into force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It must also be remembered that the Hostile Arab Palestinian was NOT a PARTY to any of the Armistice Agreements or Peace Treaties during the period including the conflicts of the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1956 War, the 1967 War or the 1973 War.

Until 1988, the West Bank was Jordanian Sovereign and the Arab-Palestinian fell under the protection of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank several months before the Fourth Geneva Convention passed into law. And the Annexation was done under Palestinians representation. Thus, under the law of succession, citizenship is based on the new sovereignty. The Refugee Palestinians became Jordanian citizens and ceased to be Refugees; recognized by the competent Jordanian authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of Jordan. This was true through July 1988.

The Arab Palestinian of the Gaza Strip maintained their citizenship under the 1925 Citizenship Law; until 1988.

The Arab Palestinians living in Israel at the time Israel declared independence and did not fall under the protection of another, were citizens of Israel.

NO ONE was "arbitrarily" denied citizenship; except those that lost Jordanian citizenship under the hand of HM the King.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, fanger, et al,

The "Tinmore" response is out of character to my commentary with "fanger" on the distinction between the Israeli "Law of Return" and the asserted (non-binding) UN Resolution 194 on the "Right of Return."

My response was not in the context of a comparative analysis between intergenerational laws perpetuated by blood (so-called Birthright assertions).

Additionally, my commentary addresses the dynamics or the reinterpretation of law in a post-conflict and transitional-conflict environment as to wherein (like the speakers) try to envision a regional implementation of "Ex Post Facto" Law and non-binding to a set of conditions that attempt to change the 21st Century Consequences to a new dynamic and imaginary set of timeline that doesn't exist now and never really existed. Nor can the post-conflict logic apply as if the Resolution 194 was binding, as if either UNRWA or UNHRC had enforcement authority, as if the Legal of criteria on the applications of "refugees" (even the definition) within a UNRWA realm and a UNHRC world were in agreement. The Palestinians cannot have both even if it was established prior to the events to which we try to apply them. One simply cannot theoretically roll-back the clock and attempt to apply the Laws of 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [(CCPR) entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49] to the events that occurred 10 --- 20 --- and 30 years prior. In fact the CCPR did not go into force until 1976,

Finally, the UN cannot today reset the conditions by using 21st Century International Humanitarian Law to a problem created in the early to mid 20th Century that would, in effect, conditional legal changes as an institutional punishment (a collective punishment in it self) (for example by replacing the Jewish State of Israel with a national death sentence) retroactively - in favor of belligerent "inhabitant claimants" that never lived in Israel and never lived under the Mandate --- and wanting to make excessive profits on the basis of a 21st Century perception of wrongs that may have been committed or appear to be wrong under 21st Century sensibilities.

"fanger, et al,

Any independent and sovereign nation has the absolute right to regulate it borders and immigration policy as a matter of domestic law. [Article 2(7) UN Charter]

The Law of Return Law under Domestic/Internal legislation is different AND not subject to International Law or oversight. It dates back to the

[QUOTE="Boston1, post: 13190275, member: 56420"
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF RETURN

there appears to be a right of return for jews that have never had a connection to the land in question

(COMMENT)

The policy is actually "The Law of Return, 5710-1950," (as amended). It addresses an entirely different issue.

Connection to the land has nothing to do with sovereignty and establishing absolute control. The State of Israel may set whatever criteria they want in terms of immigration. I thought it was interesting to hear that Israel accepted refugees through the UNHRC, from Bosnia and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a matter of immigration. You must have missed the video I posted earlier.

(COMMENT)

If we completely strip the issue of the RoR from the influences of post-1948 War of Independence, and apply ONLY that logic of the post-WWII political leaders, we would find a very different environment. And even see a much different political/legal landscape of the time. The Fourth Geneva Convention was brand new, entering into force (21 October 1950) after all the 1949 Armistice Agreements had been put in place. Remember that NONE of the ten core international human rights instruments were in effect --- or entered into force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It must also be remembered that the Hostile Arab Palestinian was NOT a PARTY to any of the Armistice Agreements or Peace Treaties during the period including the conflicts of the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1956 War, the 1967 War or the 1973 War.

Until 1988, the West Bank was Jordanian Sovereign and the Arab-Palestinian fell under the protection of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank several months before the Fourth Geneva Convention passed into law. And the Annexation was done under Palestinians representation. Thus, under the law of succession, citizenship is based on the new sovereignty. The Refugee Palestinians became Jordanian citizens and ceased to be Refugees; recognized by the competent Jordanian authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of Jordan. This was true through July 1988.

The Arab Palestinian of the Gaza Strip maintained their citizenship under the 1925 Citizenship Law; until 1988.

The Arab Palestinians living in Israel at the time Israel declared independence and did not fall under the protection of another, were citizens of Israel.

NO ONE was "arbitrarily" denied citizenship; except those that lost Jordanian citizenship under the hand of HM the King.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan never annexed the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" to go along with its scam but the world didn't buy it. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, fanger, et al,

The "Tinmore" response is out of character to my commentary with "fanger" on the distinction between the Israeli "Law of Return" and the asserted (non-binding) UN Resolution 194 on the "Right of Return."

My response was not in the context of a comparative analysis between intergenerational laws perpetuated by blood (so-called Birthright assertions).

Additionally, my commentary addresses the dynamics or the reinterpretation of law in a post-conflict and transitional-conflict environment as to wherein (like the speakers) try to envision a regional implementation of "Ex Post Facto" Law and non-binding to a set of conditions that attempt to change the 21st Century Consequences to a new dynamic and imaginary set of timeline that doesn't exist now and never really existed. Nor can the post-conflict logic apply as if the Resolution 194 was binding, as if either UNRWA or UNHRC had enforcement authority, as if the Legal of criteria on the applications of "refugees" (even the definition) within a UNRWA realm and a UNHRC world were in agreement. The Palestinians cannot have both even if it was established prior to the events to which we try to apply them. One simply cannot theoretically roll-back the clock and attempt to apply the Laws of 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [(CCPR) entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49] to the events that occurred 10 --- 20 --- and 30 years prior. In fact the CCPR did not go into force until 1976,

Finally, the UN cannot today reset the conditions by using 21st Century International Humanitarian Law to a problem created in the early to mid 20th Century that would, in effect, conditional legal changes as an institutional punishment (a collective punishment in it self) (for example by replacing the Jewish State of Israel with a national death sentence) retroactively - in favor of belligerent "inhabitant claimants" that never lived in Israel and never lived under the Mandate --- and wanting to make excessive profits on the basis of a 21st Century perception of wrongs that may have been committed or appear to be wrong under 21st Century sensibilities.

"fanger, et al,

Any independent and sovereign nation has the absolute right to regulate it borders and immigration policy as a matter of domestic law. [Article 2(7) UN Charter]

The Law of Return Law under Domestic/Internal legislation is different AND not subject to International Law or oversight. It dates back to the

[QUOTE="Boston1, post: 13190275, member: 56420"
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF RETURN

there appears to be a right of return for jews that have never had a connection to the land in question

(COMMENT)

The policy is actually "The Law of Return, 5710-1950," (as amended). It addresses an entirely different issue.

Connection to the land has nothing to do with sovereignty and establishing absolute control. The State of Israel may set whatever criteria they want in terms of immigration. I thought it was interesting to hear that Israel accepted refugees through the UNHRC, from Bosnia and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a matter of immigration. You must have missed the video I posted earlier.

(COMMENT)

If we completely strip the issue of the RoR from the influences of post-1948 War of Independence, and apply ONLY that logic of the post-WWII political leaders, we would find a very different environment. And even see a much different political/legal landscape of the time. The Fourth Geneva Convention was brand new, entering into force (21 October 1950) after all the 1949 Armistice Agreements had been put in place. Remember that NONE of the ten core international human rights instruments were in effect --- or entered into force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It must also be remembered that the Hostile Arab Palestinian was NOT a PARTY to any of the Armistice Agreements or Peace Treaties during the period including the conflicts of the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1956 War, the 1967 War or the 1973 War.

Until 1988, the West Bank was Jordanian Sovereign and the Arab-Palestinian fell under the protection of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank several months before the Fourth Geneva Convention passed into law. And the Annexation was done under Palestinians representation. Thus, under the law of succession, citizenship is based on the new sovereignty. The Refugee Palestinians became Jordanian citizens and ceased to be Refugees; recognized by the competent Jordanian authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of Jordan. This was true through July 1988.

The Arab Palestinian of the Gaza Strip maintained their citizenship under the 1925 Citizenship Law; until 1988.

The Arab Palestinians living in Israel at the time Israel declared independence and did not fall under the protection of another, were citizens of Israel.

NO ONE was "arbitrarily" denied citizenship; except those that lost Jordanian citizenship under the hand of HM the King.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan never annexed the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" to go along with its scam but the world didn't buy it. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory.

Which is off topic and irrelevant

If you are unable to prove through written legal statutes contained within international law that refugees ( worldwide or palestinian specifically ) have an inherent "right of return", then the issue is settled.

There is no right of return.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, fanger, et al,

The "Tinmore" response is out of character to my commentary with "fanger" on the distinction between the Israeli "Law of Return" and the asserted (non-binding) UN Resolution 194 on the "Right of Return."

My response was not in the context of a comparative analysis between intergenerational laws perpetuated by blood (so-called Birthright assertions).

Additionally, my commentary addresses the dynamics or the reinterpretation of law in a post-conflict and transitional-conflict environment as to wherein (like the speakers) try to envision a regional implementation of "Ex Post Facto" Law and non-binding to a set of conditions that attempt to change the 21st Century Consequences to a new dynamic and imaginary set of timeline that doesn't exist now and never really existed. Nor can the post-conflict logic apply as if the Resolution 194 was binding, as if either UNRWA or UNHRC had enforcement authority, as if the Legal of criteria on the applications of "refugees" (even the definition) within a UNRWA realm and a UNHRC world were in agreement. The Palestinians cannot have both even if it was established prior to the events to which we try to apply them. One simply cannot theoretically roll-back the clock and attempt to apply the Laws of 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [(CCPR) entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49] to the events that occurred 10 --- 20 --- and 30 years prior. In fact the CCPR did not go into force until 1976,

Finally, the UN cannot today reset the conditions by using 21st Century International Humanitarian Law to a problem created in the early to mid 20th Century that would, in effect, conditional legal changes as an institutional punishment (a collective punishment in it self) (for example by replacing the Jewish State of Israel with a national death sentence) retroactively - in favor of belligerent "inhabitant claimants" that never lived in Israel and never lived under the Mandate --- and wanting to make excessive profits on the basis of a 21st Century perception of wrongs that may have been committed or appear to be wrong under 21st Century sensibilities.

"fanger, et al,

Any independent and sovereign nation has the absolute right to regulate it borders and immigration policy as a matter of domestic law. [Article 2(7) UN Charter]

The Law of Return Law under Domestic/Internal legislation is different AND not subject to International Law or oversight. It dates back to the

[QUOTE="Boston1, post: 13190275, member: 56420"
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF RETURN

there appears to be a right of return for jews that have never had a connection to the land in question

(COMMENT)

The policy is actually "The Law of Return, 5710-1950," (as amended). It addresses an entirely different issue.

Connection to the land has nothing to do with sovereignty and establishing absolute control. The State of Israel may set whatever criteria they want in terms of immigration. I thought it was interesting to hear that Israel accepted refugees through the UNHRC, from Bosnia and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a matter of immigration. You must have missed the video I posted earlier.

(COMMENT)

If we completely strip the issue of the RoR from the influences of post-1948 War of Independence, and apply ONLY that logic of the post-WWII political leaders, we would find a very different environment. And even see a much different political/legal landscape of the time. The Fourth Geneva Convention was brand new, entering into force (21 October 1950) after all the 1949 Armistice Agreements had been put in place. Remember that NONE of the ten core international human rights instruments were in effect --- or entered into force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It must also be remembered that the Hostile Arab Palestinian was NOT a PARTY to any of the Armistice Agreements or Peace Treaties during the period including the conflicts of the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1956 War, the 1967 War or the 1973 War.

Until 1988, the West Bank was Jordanian Sovereign and the Arab-Palestinian fell under the protection of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank several months before the Fourth Geneva Convention passed into law. And the Annexation was done under Palestinians representation. Thus, under the law of succession, citizenship is based on the new sovereignty. The Refugee Palestinians became Jordanian citizens and ceased to be Refugees; recognized by the competent Jordanian authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of Jordan. This was true through July 1988.

The Arab Palestinian of the Gaza Strip maintained their citizenship under the 1925 Citizenship Law; until 1988.

The Arab Palestinians living in Israel at the time Israel declared independence and did not fall under the protection of another, were citizens of Israel.

NO ONE was "arbitrarily" denied citizenship; except those that lost Jordanian citizenship under the hand of HM the King.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Actually she did reference already existing law.

Ethnic cleansing was not an event. It is a process that continues today.

 

[Boston1]

If she mentioned the 1925 British palestinian citizenship "ORDER" it expired with the mandate midnight May 14/15 1948. It was not a law, nor was it legally binding beyond the mandated period. As I recall it allowed temporary citizenship to former Turkish subjects who wished to remain in palestine. It was specifically designed to offer some form of recognition to the Judaic people returning to their former native lands.

Try again

If you cannot find a specific law that applies to the Arabs living within the mandated area that grants them a "right of return" then there is NO RIGHT OF RETURN.

If you question the Arab rejection of this order see
The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an ...

Quote
The activation of Palestinian citizenship: reactions and problems
The Palestinian Arab Executive leadership unanimously rejected the citizenship legislation on the basis that it denied citizenship to native-born Palestinians while privileging Jewish immigrants, and that it neglected provisions for natural civil and political rights. The press, especially Issa Bandak’s newspaper Sawt al-Sha’b, became the main medium through which discussions on the citizenship order and letters from the diaspora were published. In periodicals as well as in protest memorandum, Palestinians referred to the order as the ‘nationality law’ (qanoon al-jinsiyya or haq al-jinsiyya) and generally used the Arabic term for ‘nationality’ (jinsiyya) in reference to the more legalistic and perhaps modern ‘citizenship’ (muwatina). Popular leaders and newspaper editors wrote to the British and League to decry the denial of citizenship to thousands of Palestinians who emigrated or lived abroad. In 1926, Bandak established the Committee for the Defense of Palestinian Arab Emigrant Citizenship Rights which lobbied tirelessly into the 1930s against the citizenship order and its amendments.

The Palestinians argued that the order was unlawful because it was not enacted by a parliament elected by the people. Indeed, the Palestinians were never allowed to see any drafts of the order. If the Palestinians accepted the legitimacy of the enactment ‘of this controversial law,’ the order remained illegal and benefited what was then still only a small minority of Jewish immigrants. Bandak concluded that many world governments enacted strong barriers to the facilitation of nationality of foreigners who sought the same livelihoods as their own native populations. In Palestine, the establishment of a Jewish national home, strengthened by the nationality order, would annihilate Arab national control of the country’s facilities, take land from Arab hands and deplete Arab financial wealth. This condition would continue despite the existence of a nationality law, Bandak argued. He pledged that the Palestinians would work to stop the law unless they could enact a new law ‘legitimately by constitutional means’ (‘The law prejudices the rights of the Arabs’, 1925).

Conclusion
The Palestine citizenship order did not grant Palestinian citizens the rights they agitated for as citizens: control over their own government or rights to their borders, treaties, educational affairs, public works, election laws, taxation and tithe rates or trade laws.
End Quote

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, Boston1, et al,

When we speak of Intergenerational Anything --- we are implying some relationship from the past --- into the future. Or it may be more precise to say a relationship between the living people of today to those that will live in the remote or distant future.

When we tack-on some concept of a "right" (a moral or legal entitlement), we are implying that we are passing-on an "obligation" of some sort.

As might be expected, some objects of an intergenerational obligation by the currently living are likely to be less reliable. But the one consistency is that the arrow of time relative to an intergenerational obligation always moves forward (not backwards). The obligation cannot be retroactively applied. The son cannot pass-on a legacy to the father. But the son can accept an obligation from the father. Future generations cannot effect effect changes that effect either in the present or the past.

The film is irrelevant Tinmore. If you are unable to prove through written legal statutes contained within international law that refugees ( worldwide or palestinian specifically ) have an inherent "right of return", then the issue is settled.

There is no right of return.

Men who write Rules,Laws and Bibles do not have more right to live on the Land than Men who have never needed to read or right

(COMMENT)

Some claimants of today and into the future can be said to have this “birthright” claim. The Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only a small portion of the my overall DNA; but, it is significant in that mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother. The mtMDA is note only powerful evidence for identification purposes, but for the tracking ancestry as well.

Every year, literally hundreds of thousands children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. In America those children are automatically recognizes as U.S. citizens upon birth. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. This is a direct tie of birthplace of the claimant to the consequence of automatic “birthright citizenship.” And from that point on, the citizenship of future generations will be genetic in that line; intergenerational.

NOW the important part!!!! The intergenerational nature of the citizenship is not encoded to the mtDNA. It is the connection with the geographic location and the domestic national law; that will impact the future. It is dependent no the location and law. If one or the other changes, then the impact on the future determination of citizenship is placed in jeopardy.

Someone, not born within the sovereign boundaries of Israel, does not have the citizenship the geography of birth. NOT ALL Palestinians have a intergenerational RoR. Once the last one of the original 700,000 dies, the point will be of no consequence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Not exactly. She is trying to invoke the 1925 Citizenship Law for Palestine. And she is trying to use the inhabitance clause of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Actually she did reference already existing law.

Ethnic cleansing was not an event. It is a process that continues today.

(COMMENT)

She did not state exactly which law she was relying upon. Wha she was relying on the most was the acceptance of the argument that it was customarily understood that repatriation was the customary choice. While she did use an example of 19900's decade, that is not the same as what was customary in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It was not Illegal in April 1950, before the law became effective.

P F Tinmore, fanger, et al,

The "Tinmore" response is out of character to my commentary with "fanger" on the distinction between the Israeli "Law of Return" and the asserted (non-binding) UN Resolution 194 on the "Right of Return."

My response was not in the context of a comparative analysis between intergenerational laws perpetuated by blood (so-called Birthright assertions).

Additionally, my commentary addresses the dynamics or the reinterpretation of law in a post-conflict and transitional-conflict environment as to wherein (like the speakers) try to envision a regional implementation of "Ex Post Facto" Law and non-binding to a set of conditions that attempt to change the 21st Century Consequences to a new dynamic and imaginary set of timeline that doesn't exist now and never really existed. Nor can the post-conflict logic apply as if the Resolution 194 was binding, as if either UNRWA or UNHRC had enforcement authority, as if the Legal of criteria on the applications of "refugees" (even the definition) within a UNRWA realm and a UNHRC world were in agreement. The Palestinians cannot have both even if it was established prior to the events to which we try to apply them. One simply cannot theoretically roll-back the clock and attempt to apply the Laws of 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [(CCPR) entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49] to the events that occurred 10 --- 20 --- and 30 years prior. In fact the CCPR did not go into force until 1976,

Finally, the UN cannot today reset the conditions by using 21st Century International Humanitarian Law to a problem created in the early to mid 20th Century that would, in effect, conditional legal changes as an institutional punishment (a collective punishment in it self) (for example by replacing the Jewish State of Israel with a national death sentence) retroactively - in favor of belligerent "inhabitant claimants" that never lived in Israel and never lived under the Mandate --- and wanting to make excessive profits on the basis of a 21st Century perception of wrongs that may have been committed or appear to be wrong under 21st Century sensibilities.

"fanger, et al,

Any independent and sovereign nation has the absolute right to regulate it borders and immigration policy as a matter of domestic law. [Article 2(7) UN Charter]

The Law of Return Law under Domestic/Internal legislation is different AND not subject to International Law or oversight. It dates back to the

[QUOTE="Boston1, post: 13190275, member: 56420"
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF RETURN

there appears to be a right of return for jews that have never had a connection to the land in question

(COMMENT)

The policy is actually "The Law of Return, 5710-1950," (as amended). It addresses an entirely different issue.

Connection to the land has nothing to do with sovereignty and establishing absolute control. The State of Israel may set whatever criteria they want in terms of immigration. I thought it was interesting to hear that Israel accepted refugees through the UNHRC, from Bosnia and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a matter of immigration. You must have missed the video I posted earlier.

(COMMENT)

If we completely strip the issue of the RoR from the influences of post-1948 War of Independence, and apply ONLY that logic of the post-WWII political leaders, we would find a very different environment. And even see a much different political/legal landscape of the time. The Fourth Geneva Convention was brand new, entering into force (21 October 1950) after all the 1949 Armistice Agreements had been put in place. Remember that NONE of the ten core international human rights instruments were in effect --- or entered into force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It must also be remembered that the Hostile Arab Palestinian was NOT a PARTY to any of the Armistice Agreements or Peace Treaties during the period including the conflicts of the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1956 War, the 1967 War or the 1973 War.

Until 1988, the West Bank was Jordanian Sovereign and the Arab-Palestinian fell under the protection of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank several months before the Fourth Geneva Convention passed into law. And the Annexation was done under Palestinians representation. Thus, under the law of succession, citizenship is based on the new sovereignty. The Refugee Palestinians became Jordanian citizens and ceased to be Refugees; recognized by the competent Jordanian authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of Jordan. This was true through July 1988.

The Arab Palestinian of the Gaza Strip maintained their citizenship under the 1925 Citizenship Law; until 1988.

The Arab Palestinians living in Israel at the time Israel declared independence and did not fall under the protection of another, were citizens of Israel.

NO ONE was "arbitrarily" denied citizenship; except those that lost Jordanian citizenship under the hand of HM the King.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan never annexed the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" to go along with its scam but the world didn't buy it. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

The GCIV went into effect in October 1950; six month after the annexation effect.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Not exactly. She is trying to invoke the 1925 Citizenship Law for Palestine. And she is trying to use the inhabitance clause of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Actually she did reference already existing law.

Ethnic cleansing was not an event. It is a process that continues today.

(COMMENT)

She did not state exactly which law she was relying upon. Wha she was relying on the most was the acceptance of the argument that it was customarily understood that repatriation was the customary choice. While she did use an example of 19900's decade, that is not the same as what was customary in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand, however the 1925 ORDER was not a law. It was a temporary ORDER of the British mandate period and it EXPIRED on May 14/15 1948 after having been REJECTED unanimously by Arabs living in the mandated area specifically because it didn't grant citizenship in any official sense to palestinians born in the mandated area. Actually the Order was one whopping huge moment in confusion and nothing ever really came of it other than to grant citizenship to the Judaic people returning from the surrounding Arab countries as well as those returning from Europe.

But no matter how you slice it, it was an order and not a law, and It certainly has no basis in international law.

Tinmore can try again about 7 more times as far as I can see. There are 8 common misconceptions in international law that are often used by pro palestinians to support this idea of a "right of return" however each has multiple and major flaws that negate their applicability.

In the end there is NO RIGHT OF RETURN.

Return is a privilege afforded to those who "wish to live in peace" and who therefor "should" be allowed to return. And thats if an only if you accept a NON BINDING RESOLUTION.

But it is not a right.

Unless someone can actually produce an international LAW that specifically grants a right of return to both former combatants and refugees as well as their descendants, then the issue is settled

There is no right of return.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Yes, I was trying to be specific in the answering P F Tinmore's interest in the video presentation.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Not exactly. She is trying to invoke the 1925 Citizenship Law for Palestine. And she is trying to use the inhabitance clause of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Actually she did reference already existing law.

Ethnic cleansing was not an event. It is a process that continues today.

(COMMENT)

She did not state exactly which law she was relying upon. Wha she was relying on the most was the acceptance of the argument that it was customarily understood that repatriation was the customary choice. While she did use an example of 19900's decade, that is not the same as what was customary in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand, however the 1925 ORDER was not a law. It was a temporary ORDER of the British mandate period and it EXPIRED on May 14/15 1948 after having been REJECTED unanimously by Arabs living in the mandated area specifically because it didn't grant citizenship in any official sense to palestinians born in the mandated area. Actually the Order was one whopping huge moment in confusion and nothing ever really came of it other than to grant citizenship to the Judaic people returning from the surrounding Arab countries as well as those returning from Europe.

But no matter how you slice it, it was an order and not a law, and It certainly has no basis in international law.

Tinmore can try again about 7 more times as far as I can see. There are 8 common misconceptions in international law that are often used by pro palestinians to support this idea of a "right of return" however each has multiple and major flaws that negate their applicability.

In the end there is NO RIGHT OF RETURN.

Return is a privilege afforded to those who "wish to live in peace" and who therefor "should" be allowed to return. And thats if an only if you accept a NON BINDING RESOLUTION.

But it is not a right.

Unless someone can actually produce an international LAW that specifically grants a right of return to both former combatants and refugees as well as their descendants, then the issue is settled

There is no right of return.

(COMMENT)

I think substantially you are close enough --- I agree with your overall assessment. I think that the International adjudicators are not going to be very due diligent in the determination of what was valid when. The UN, the International Court of Justice, and the ICC have given tacit approval for so much criminal and terrorist activity, that if and new adjudication would be undertaken, they would show incompetence on the part of these international bodies. I think that the radicalized Muslim Influence and Jihadist threats on the European adjudicators will be so overwhelming politically, --- that now, the decision even before litigation --- is decided in sympathetic response to the Palestinians and to avoid a Radical Muslim backlash in central Europe.

Well, there are a couple of arguments that extend the LoN Mandate into the Article 77(1a) UN Trusteeship. The particular presenter makes statements that could be valid if dependent upon what timeline perspective was being used. But clearly, by November 1988, all remnants of the Mandate/Trusteeship were wiped away because the PLO (without Trusteeship objection - tacit approval) declared independence. I say November 1988 because, the period August, September, October, and mid-November 1988, the sovereignty of the West Bank was unclaimed by the Trusteeship, Jordan, and the Palestinians ---- while subject to effective control by Israel; essentially undefined. Again, the UN took no action and made no objection.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Snouter]

"Jews" are from Saudi Arabia according to the Old Testament and have the right to return there I guess. Who gives a shit?

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Yes, I was trying to be specific in the answering P F Tinmore's interest in the video presentation.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Not exactly. She is trying to invoke the 1925 Citizenship Law for Palestine. And she is trying to use the inhabitance clause of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Actually she did reference already existing law.

Ethnic cleansing was not an event. It is a process that continues today.

(COMMENT)

She did not state exactly which law she was relying upon. Wha she was relying on the most was the acceptance of the argument that it was customarily understood that repatriation was the customary choice. While she did use an example of 19900's decade, that is not the same as what was customary in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand, however the 1925 ORDER was not a law. It was a temporary ORDER of the British mandate period and it EXPIRED on May 14/15 1948 after having been REJECTED unanimously by Arabs living in the mandated area specifically because it didn't grant citizenship in any official sense to palestinians born in the mandated area. Actually the Order was one whopping huge moment in confusion and nothing ever really came of it other than to grant citizenship to the Judaic people returning from the surrounding Arab countries as well as those returning from Europe.

But no matter how you slice it, it was an order and not a law, and It certainly has no basis in international law.

Tinmore can try again about 7 more times as far as I can see. There are 8 common misconceptions in international law that are often used by pro palestinians to support this idea of a "right of return" however each has multiple and major flaws that negate their applicability.

In the end there is NO RIGHT OF RETURN.

Return is a privilege afforded to those who "wish to live in peace" and who therefor "should" be allowed to return. And thats if an only if you accept a NON BINDING RESOLUTION.

But it is not a right.

Unless someone can actually produce an international LAW that specifically grants a right of return to both former combatants and refugees as well as their descendants, then the issue is settled

There is no right of return.

(COMMENT)

I think substantially you are close enough --- I agree with your overall assessment. I think that the International adjudicators are not going to be very due diligent in the determination of what was valid when. The UN, the International Court of Justice, and the ICC have given tacit approval for so much criminal and terrorist activity, that if and new adjudication would be undertaken, they would show incompetence on the part of these international bodies. I think that the radicalized Muslim Influence and Jihadist threats on the European adjudicators will be so overwhelming politically, --- that now, the decision even before litigation --- is decided in sympathetic response to the Palestinians and to avoid a Radical Muslim backlash in central Europe.

Well, there are a couple of arguments that extend the LoN Mandate into the Article 77(1a) UN Trusteeship. The particular presenter makes statements that could be valid if dependent upon what timeline perspective was being used. But clearly, by November 1988, all remnants of the Mandate/Trusteeship were wiped away because the PLO (without Trusteeship objection - tacit approval) declared independence. I say November 1988 because, the period August, September, October, and mid-November 1988, the sovereignty of the West Bank was unclaimed by the Trusteeship, Jordan, and the Palestinians ---- while subject to effective control by Israel; essentially undefined. Again, the UN took no action and made no objection.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well I give you a lot of credit for going through a video. When I was in school if I'd presented a video in support of a legal argument I'd have been tar and feathered. ;--)

I'm not clear on what ( LoN Mandate ) is as it is unreferenced within international law. Ergo it isn't something a reader can look up easily and see that the reference is being used accurately.

I'm also not clear on what ( Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship ) is or where it can be found so that I might research its background and applicability to the palestinian issue.

Several of innumerable reasons that any references or citations must be made in writing in order to facilitate the readers in verifying the validity of any given claim.

While am most definitely enjoying the conversation its really not possible to vet the veracity of various claims unless we stick to convention and reference claims properly. What I tend to find is that the more vague the reference, the less likely the claim is to stand up to scrutiny.

cheers

Oh and again. I often hear about how this "right" of return is steeped in international law. But I've yet to have anyone actually show up with one that applies to the palestinians,

So I ask you, anyone have an international law that actually and explicitly says that the palestinian refugees and their descendants regardless of refugee or combatant status have a legal "right" of return ?

 

[Indeependent]

"Jews" are from Saudi Arabia according to the Old Testament and have the right to return there I guess. Who gives a shit?

Idiot...Saudi Arabia is North East of Canaan?
Idiot.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Yes, it is rather confusing.

I understand, however the 1925 ORDER was not a law. It was a temporary ORDER of the British mandate period and it EXPIRED on May 14/15 1948 after having been REJECTED unanimously by Arabs living in the mandated area specifically because it didn't grant citizenship in any official sense to palestinians born in the mandated area. Actually the Order was one whopping huge moment in confusion and nothing ever really came of it other than to grant citizenship to the Judaic people returning from the surrounding Arab countries as well as those returning from Europe.

(COMMENT)

Yes the 1925 Citizenship Order remained viable in those areas outside sovereignty, but still with the territory to which the Mandate applied.

But no matter how you slice it, it was an order and not a law, and It certainly has no basis in international law.

(COMMENT)

It was Administrative Law governing the conduct of the business within within the territory. It was, as was regulations and directives, treated as such. The difference of which, was that it was not promulgated through a sovereign legislative process.

Tinmore can try again about 7 more times as far as I can see. There are 8 common misconceptions in international law that are often used by pro palestinians to support this idea of a "right of return" howe

(COMMENT)

As I've said before, I cannot find any International Law that garentees the "Right of Return (RoR). I would be interested if "anyone" has a citation.

Well I give you a lot of credit for going through a video. When I was in school if I'd presented a video in support of a legal argument I'd have been tar and feathered. ;--)

I'm not clear on what ( LoN Mandate ) is as it is unreferenced within international law. Ergo it isn't something a reader can look up easily and see that the reference is being used accurately.

I'm also not clear on what ( Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship ) is or where it can be found so that I might research its background and applicability to the palestinian issue.

(COMMENT)

Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship: UN Charter
Article 77 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements: a. territories now held under mandate; b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

League of Nations (LoN) Mandate for Palestine, had the force of Administrative Law. It was written for and directed specifically to the British Mandatory Authority. It was replaced by the UN Trusteeship system in 1946. This was a very rare kind of document. It was issued in the name of the Council of the League of Nations; but was based on the decisions made by the Allied Powers.

Several of innumerable reasons that any references or citations must be made in writing in order to facilitate the readers in verifying the validity of any given claim.

While am most definitely enjoying the conversation its really not possible to vet the veracity of various claims unless we stick to convention and reference claims properly. What I tend to find is that the more vague the reference, the less likely the claim is to stand up to scrutiny.

(COMMENT)

The "Right of Return" is mentioned pretty much as stated by Post #59. Like I said, most of these claims need evaluated whether the “right of return” is supported by international treaties or customary international law (“CIL”). Depending on who you might listen to, CIL is the basic source (sometimes referred to as the
Palestinian version of history --- or --- PVH --- although I've been told it is more Mythology).

So I ask you, anyone have an international law that actually and explicitly says that the palestinian refugees and their descendants regardless of refugee or combatant status have a legal "right" of return ?

(COMMENT)

Well the language for the criteria comes from Part III A(1) of the """Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI)."""

"Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees."
​

I often find that proponents of a Palestinian RoR often rely on so-called “soft law,” and the Palestinians (not knowing what it means) interpret that as some form of international law. It is nothing of the sort. Soft Law normally comes from non-binding resolutions, administrative codes, international commission reports (absent any evidence collection techniques), and political statements.

The strongest claim is the CIL argument. However, the that would require a history of refugee movements that were not RoR similar. This can be found in Can Forced Population Transfers Resolve Self-determination Conflicts? A European Perspective...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Quote
(COMMENT)

Yes the 1925 Citizenship Order remained viable in those areas outside sovereignty, but still with the territory to which the Mandate applied.
End Quote

If you could reference that within the language of the Order I'd like to explore that one further, from what I can see the order allowed foreign national residing within the mandated area at the time of the mandate to declare their preference for either their nationality or for something referred to as mandate citizenship but left undefined.

Quote
(COMMENT)

It was Administrative Law governing the conduct of the business within within the territory. It was, as was regulations and directives, treated as such. The difference of which, was that it was not promulgated through a sovereign legislative process.
End Quote

No, it was an inter administrative order, It was never a law, for the very reasons you specify, and it was vehemently opposed by the Arab leaders both within the mandate area and without, who rejected it unanimously.

Quote
(COMMENT)

As I've said before, I cannot find any International Law that garentees the "Right of Return (RoR). I would be interested if "anyone" has a citation.
End Quote

Agreed, and no they haven't, and they won't. This is one of my favorite issues within the overall topic. This myth of a "right" of return is classic revisionist history. Oh they've been pushing for it, but there is no international law that specifically applies to the palestinians. Also there are massive complications. The main one being who is a refugee ? Combatants give up their status once they engage in violence, as do their heirs, so ,,,,,,,,,,, now we have the question of segregating not only combatants but their heirs. We also have the question of compensation by the responsible party. Israel didn't attack five Arab nations, in 48, they held off five Arab nations. So its pretty obvious that the aggressor is the responsible party.

The list goes on

Quote
(COMMENT)

Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship: UN Charter
Article 77 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements: a. territories now held under mandate; b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

League of Nations (LoN) Mandate for Palestine, had the force of Administrative Law. It was written for and directed specifically to the British Mandatory Authority. It was replaced by the UN Trusteeship system in 1946. This was a very rare kind of document. It was issued in the name of the Council of the League of Nations; but was based on the decisions made by the Allied Powers.
End Quote

Excellent

I'll look up the former asap however the later has expired, no UN mandate Order is Law, and no UN mandate order is valid if the mandated period has expired.

Quote
(COMMENT)

Well the language for the criteria comes from Part III A(1) of the """Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI)."""

"Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees."
End Quote

Oh can I ever have a field day with this one. Give me a minute to edit in the short version ;--) But short story is that since the conflict is ongoing and since combatants and refugees were never segregated and since combatants do not qualify for protections afforded refugees and since the refugee host nations have no obligation to house or otherwise accommodate descendants of combatants then we actually have no legally eligible refugees even if their were a right of return.

Quote
The strongest claim is the CIL argument. However, the that would require a history of refugee movements that were not RoR similar. This can be found in Can Forced Population Transfers Resolve Self-determination Conflicts? A European Perspective...

Most Respectfully,
R
End Quote

Yes I've heard this one before and I have numerous rebuttals to this position in my notes here somewhere, If I don't get to it soon enough in an edit I'll tackle it soon enough.

In the end however their are layers upon layers of reasons the palestinians DO NOT QUALIFY either for the privilege of return as defined in UNR what is it 182 ? or any subsequent resolutions supporting return or even just as refugees.

Give me a few minutes to address those few items left open

Edit

Stefan Wolff Department of European Studies University of Bath
Bath BA2 7AY
England, UK S.Wolff@bath.ac.uk

Has no relevance in this issue either.

Notes
257 A 1950 discussion of the U.N.’s handling of the Palestine issue noted: “The decision of the General Assembly on Palestine took the form of recommendations, since the General Assembly itself has no executive authority.” EUGENE P. CHASE, THE UNITED NATIONS IN ACTION 151 (1950). Hans Kelsen’s influential 1950 work on the law of the United Nations system was quite clear that, apart from specific exceptions, such as resolutions about internal or housekeeping matters, General Assembly resolutions were “political” rather than “legal” because the General Assembly was not empowered to create binding legal “obligations, rights or competences.” KELSEN, supra note 248, at 193–94; see also id. at 195–96 (regarding the Charter power of the General Assembly to make “recommendations,” stating that “[r]ecommendations, by their very nature, do not constitute a legal obligation to behave in conformity with them”); id. at 199–200 (“The intention was to establish the General Assembly as ‘town meeting of the world,’ the ‘open conscience of humanity,’ that is to say, as a deliberative and criticising organ. Hence, legal functions [defined by Kelsen as the power to impose or create legally binding obligations or rights] of the Assembly are to be considered as exceptions and require special provisions in the Charter.”) (citing The Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946–47 U.N.Y.B. 51, U.N. Sales No. 1947 I.18).

258 See, e.g., GAIL J. BOLING, THE 1948 PALESTINIAN REFUGEES AND THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF RETURN: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW ANALYSIS 15 (2d ed. 2007) (“Resolution 194 unambiguously declared—in reliance upon then-existing principles of customary international law—that Israel was obliged immediately to allow all Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 conflict to exercise their right of return.”).

1. 259 See G.A. Res. 194(III), supra note 117.
   
   
2. 260 See, e.g., G.A. Res. 2535 (XXIV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2535(XXIV) (Dec. 10,
   

1969), pt. B, pmbl. (claiming that “the Palestine Arab refugees” have been denied “their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”); Arab League Stresses on the Palestinian Refugees’ Right of Return, OCCUPIEDPALESTINE.COM (May 16, 2012), #Nakba64 | Arab League stresses on the Palestinian refugees' right of return stresses-on-the-palestinian-refugees-right-of-return/ (reporting that the Arab League voted and decided that Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel).
261 For some examples, see infra Appendix Table 1 (cases 58, 59, 62, 64, 67, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81, 84, 86–88, 91–92, 94, 97, 99–102, 107, 113, 114, 117, 120, 126, 133, 136, 138, 143–50, 152, 155–56, 159).

262 Among the states that have declined to sign any of the major treaties concerning refugee rights (the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons) are: Bahrain, Brunei, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. Israel is a party to all three treaties. For data on states parties to these conventions, see supra note 215.

1. 263 See, e.g., TAKKENBERG, supra note 3, at 131–71.
   
   
2. 264 A term borrowed from economics that is used to contrast cost-free actions
   

that are unlikely to reveal the actor’s true preferences with “costly” actions or signals which, because they are not free to make, are more likely to reveal true preferences. See John O. McGinnis & Ilya Somin, Should International Law Be Part of Our Law?, 59 STAN. L. REV. 1175, 1204 & n.139 (2007).

265 See, e.g., BOYLE, supra note 205, at 69 (“[A]s yet another express consideration for its admission to the United Nations Organization, the government of Israel officially endorsed and agreed to carry out the aforementioned U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 1948, which determined that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes . . . .”); see also BOLING, supra note 258, at 22–23 (to the same effect); Abunimah & Ibish, supra note 102, at 7, 23 (same).

266 Voting on the admission of new member states is one of the few areas where the U.N. General Assembly has binding authority. See U.N. Charter art. 4(2).




cheers

 

[montelatici]

Boston1, et al,

Yes, it is rather confusing.

I understand, however the 1925 ORDER was not a law. It was a temporary ORDER of the British mandate period and it EXPIRED on May 14/15 1948 after having been REJECTED unanimously by Arabs living in the mandated area specifically because it didn't grant citizenship in any official sense to palestinians born in the mandated area. Actually the Order was one whopping huge moment in confusion and nothing ever really came of it other than to grant citizenship to the Judaic people returning from the surrounding Arab countries as well as those returning from Europe.

(COMMENT)

Yes the 1925 Citizenship Order remained viable in those areas outside sovereignty, but still with the territory to which the Mandate applied.

But no matter how you slice it, it was an order and not a law, and It certainly has no basis in international law.

(COMMENT)

It was Administrative Law governing the conduct of the business within within the territory. It was, as was regulations and directives, treated as such. The difference of which, was that it was not promulgated through a sovereign legislative process.

Tinmore can try again about 7 more times as far as I can see. There are 8 common misconceptions in international law that are often used by pro palestinians to support this idea of a "right of return" howe

(COMMENT)

As I've said before, I cannot find any International Law that garentees the "Right of Return (RoR). I would be interested if "anyone" has a citation.

Well I give you a lot of credit for going through a video. When I was in school if I'd presented a video in support of a legal argument I'd have been tar and feathered. ;--)

I'm not clear on what ( LoN Mandate ) is as it is unreferenced within international law. Ergo it isn't something a reader can look up easily and see that the reference is being used accurately.

I'm also not clear on what ( Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship ) is or where it can be found so that I might research its background and applicability to the palestinian issue.

(COMMENT)

Article 77(1a) UN trusteeship: UN Charter
Article 77 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements: a. territories now held under mandate; b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

League of Nations (LoN) Mandate for Palestine, had the force of Administrative Law. It was written for and directed specifically to the British Mandatory Authority. It was replaced by the UN Trusteeship system in 1946. This was a very rare kind of document. It was issued in the name of the Council of the League of Nations; but was based on the decisions made by the Allied Powers.

Several of innumerable reasons that any references or citations must be made in writing in order to facilitate the readers in verifying the validity of any given claim.

While am most definitely enjoying the conversation its really not possible to vet the veracity of various claims unless we stick to convention and reference claims properly. What I tend to find is that the more vague the reference, the less likely the claim is to stand up to scrutiny.

(COMMENT)

The "Right of Return" is mentioned pretty much as stated by Post #59. Like I said, most of these claims need evaluated whether the “right of return” is supported by international treaties or customary international law (“CIL”). Depending on who you might listen to, CIL is the basic source (sometimes referred to as the
Palestinian version of history --- or --- PVH --- although I've been told it is more Mythology).

So I ask you, anyone have an international law that actually and explicitly says that the palestinian refugees and their descendants regardless of refugee or combatant status have a legal "right" of return ?

(COMMENT)

Well the language for the criteria comes from Part III A(1) of the """Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI)."""

"Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees."
​

I often find that proponents of a Palestinian RoR often rely on so-called “soft law,” and the Palestinians (not knowing what it means) interpret that as some form of international law. It is nothing of the sort. Soft Law normally comes from non-binding resolutions, administrative codes, international commission reports (absent any evidence collection techniques), and political statements.

The strongest claim is the CIL argument. However, the that would require a history of refugee movements that were not RoR similar. This can be found in Can Forced Population Transfers Resolve Self-determination Conflicts? A European Perspective...

Most Respectfully,
R

First Rocco/Zionist propaganda, now the facts:

To understand the process by which Palestinian natives acquired Palestinian nationality. Firstly, in international law, when a state is dissolved and a new state (or states) are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality. As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from other Ottoman administrative districts. This separation included the separation between Palestine and other newly created adjoining states, provisional or otherwise. Transjordania, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

Soon thereafter, Palestine’s borders gained permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East. Each of the four other countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.

Transjordania instituted a nationality for its own population, distinct from Palestine’s. The resolution of 16 September 1922 resolved that Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate (relating to Palestinian nationality) would not be applicable to Transjordania. Transjordanias’s inhabitants were then expressly excluded from the scope of Palestinian nationality by Article 21 of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order

“For the purpose of this Order: (1) The expression ‘Palestine’ includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territory to the East of the [River of] Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated 1 September 1922.”

So this was enacted domestic Law as was the Mandatory's right..

Trans-Jordan eventually enacted its Nationality Law on 1 May 1928.

Article1 of this Law conferred Transjordanian nationality on all Ottoman subjects (citizens) residing in the territory of Transjordania retroactively as of 6 August 1924 – the date on which the Treaty of Lausanne came into force. Transjordanian nationality formed a distinct nationality from that of Palestine, not only in law but also in practice, throughout the mandate.Transjordanians, for example, were required to present travel documents to be admitted into Palestine, albeit with certain favorable facilities compared with other foreigners (such as exemption from possessing passports and usimg an ID card if they had a job in Palestine

But, to finally put Rocco's silliness to bed with this coup de grace. The Supreme Court's decision in Jawdat Badawi Sha’ban v. Palestine Commissioner for Migration and Statistics
14 December 1945.

“Now, Trans-Jordan has a government entirely independent of Palestine – the laws of Palestine are not applicable in Trans-Jordan nor are their laws applicable here. Moreover, although the High Commissioner of Palestine is also High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan has an entirely independent government under the rule of an Ameer and apart from certain reserved matters the High Commissioner cannot interfere with the government of Trans-Jordan… Trans-Jordan comes within the meaning of the word ‘state’ as used in Article 15 [of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order]… Trans-Jordan nationality is recognised and we know that Trans-Jordan can, as in this case, grant a person naturalisation, i.e. grant an alien or foreigner Trans-Jordan nationality which is a separate nationality and distinct from that of Palestine citizenship… Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine”

Title page | Cambridge Law Reports - Cambridge University Press

 

[ForeverYoung436]

"Jews" are from Saudi Arabia according to the Old Testament and have the right to return there I guess. Who gives a shit?

Wrong. Arabs are from Arabia, Jews are from Judea.