Is the Right of Return an Intergenerational Right?

[Boston1]

OK for whatever reason this site isn't allowing me to use quote boxes and its just cut out the body of the text and now won't allow me to correct it. Crazy but I'll try it again.

Quote from previously noted reference
149 EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS' CLAIMED RIGHT ...

Besides the general problem of relying on formally nonbinding General Assembly resolutions to support the right of return, there are problems with claims made on the Palestinians’ behalf about specific General Assembly resolutions, particularly Resolution 194. For instance, it is implied that Resolution 194, itself, states that CIL requires the return of the refugees.258 This is false, as perusal of the text demonstrates.259 Additionally, the claim that the General Assembly’s repeated references to and reenactments of Resolution 194 have transformed the Resolution from non-binding to binding cannot be correct because even today there is no consensus that valid CIL forms in that manner—that is, solely through non- binding votes in a diplomatic forum, the U.N. General Assembly. This is particularly the case here, with the issue of refugee return. The chief proponents of the theory that the General Assembly has binding, legislative authority regarding Israel and Palestinian refugees—the Arab and Muslim states— have declared for decades in diplomatic forums that international law requires the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.260 At the same time, many of these proponents have expelled large numbers of their own nationals

and resident aliens, including Palestinians;261 have refused to agree to minimal international standards regarding the treatment of refugees;262 and have denied Palestinian refugees who reside in their countries citizenship and some of the most basic of human rights.263 “Cheap talk”264 in diplomatic forums that is contradicted by states’ actual behavior when their own interests are at stake does not create CIL binding on other states.

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return.265 Thus, it is said, even if Resolution 194 lacks inherently binding force (recall that General Assembly declarations of this kind are undisputedly treated by the U.N. Charter as non- binding), nevertheless the General Assembly’s power to decide whether or not to admit new member states has made return of the 1947–49 refugees a binding obligation.266 The factual assertion underlying this claim—that the membership vote on Israel was conditional—is false. In fact, Arab representatives at the General Assembly meeting on May 11, 1949, concerning the admission of Israel, complained that Israel was admitted without having to

commit to refugee return, despite their attempts to make Israel comply.267 Moreover, those supporters of a Palestinian right of return who tie return to the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership ignore that the power of the General Assembly to make membership conditional on factors not mentioned in the Charter was debated in 1947, soon before Israel petitioned for membership and the Arab states’ position was rejected. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory legal opinion on the subject in May 1948, two weeks after Israel proclaimed its independence. According to the Court, a U.N. member called upon to vote on a state’s petition for membership is not “juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph [1]” of Article 4 of the Charter.268 The relevant Charter provision provides in full: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”269 On the basis that Israel fulfilled these written requirements, the Security Council advised that Israel be admitted,270 and the General Assembly approved Israel’s admission.271 The claim that a right of return for Palestinians was created by the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership is incorrect.

Besides the general problem of relying on formally nonbinding General Assembly resolutions to support the right of return, there are problems with claims made on the Palestinians’ behalf about specific General Assembly resolutions, particularly Resolution 194. For instance, it is implied that Resolution 194, itself, states that CIL requires the return of the refugees.258 This is false, as perusal of the text demonstrates.259 Additionally, the claim that the General Assembly’s repeated references to and reenactments of Resolution 194 have transformed the Resolution from non-binding to binding cannot be correct because even today there is no consensus that valid CIL forms in that manner—that is, solely through non- binding votes in a diplomatic forum, the U.N. General Assembly. This is particularly the case here, with the issue of refugee return. The chief proponents of the theory that the General Assembly has binding, legislative authority regarding Israel and Palestinian refugees—the Arab and Muslim states— have declared for decades in diplomatic forums that international law requires the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.260At the same time, many of these proponents have expelled large numbers of their own nationals

and resident aliens, including Palestinians;261 have refused to agree to minimal international standards regarding the treatment of refugees;262 and have denied Palestinian refugees who reside in their countries citizenship and some of the most basic of human rights.263 “Cheap talk”264 in diplomatic forums that is contradicted by states’ actual behavior when their own interests are at stake does not create CIL binding on other states.

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return
.265 Thus, it is said, even if Resolution 194 lacks inherently binding force (recall that General Assembly declarations of this kind are undisputedly treated by the U.N. Charter as non- binding), nevertheless the General Assembly’s power to decide whether or not to admit new member states has made return of the 1947–49 refugees a binding obligation.266 The factual assertion underlying this claim—that the membership vote on Israel was conditional—is false. In fact, Arab representatives at the General Assembly meeting on May 11, 1949, concerning the admission of Israel, complained that Israel was admitted without having to

commit to refugee return, despite their attempts to make Israel comply.
267 Moreover, those supporters of a Palestinian right of return who tie return to the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership ignore that the power of the General Assembly to make membership conditional on factors not mentioned in the Charter was debated in 1947, soon before Israel petitioned for membership and the Arab states’ position was rejected. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory legal opinion on the subject in May 1948, two weeks after Israel proclaimed its independence. According to the Court, a U.N. member called upon to vote on a state’s petition for membership is not “juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph [1]” of Article 4 of the Charter.
268 The relevant Charter provision provides in full: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”
269 On the basis that Israel fulfilled these written requirements, the Security Council advised that Israel be admitted,
270 and the General Assembly approved Israel’s admission.
271 The claim that a right of return for Palestinians was created by the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership is incorrect.

End Quote

So as we can all see there is no relevance to be found in CIL that stated the palestinians have any "right" to return

Yikes what a nightmare, I give up
Go to the link and read it for your bloody selves

 

[montelatici]

UNITED NATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

 

[Boston1]

UNITED NATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Which has exactly nothing to do with any a legal "right" of return. ;--)

It has nothing to do with foreign nationals in a host nation. ;--)

It has nothing to do with immigration ;--)

It fails to address the issue of combatants

It fails to address the issue of segregating combatants from refugee population

Ad infinitum

 

[montelatici]

UNITED NATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Which has exactly nothing to do with any a legal "right" of return. ;--)

It has nothing to do with foreign nationals in a host nation. ;--)

It has nothing to do with immigration ;--)

It fails to address the issue of combatants

It fails to address the issue of segregating combatants from refugee population

Ad infinitum

You lost. Live with it.

 

[Boston1]

UNITED NATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Which has exactly nothing to do with any a legal "right" of return. ;--)

It has nothing to do with foreign nationals in a host nation. ;--)

It has nothing to do with immigration ;--)

It fails to address the issue of combatants

It fails to address the issue of segregating combatants from refugee population

Ad infinitum

You lost. Live with it.

I personally have lost nothing, if you are referring to Israel, they also have lost nothing. The palestinians on the other hand, or their protagonists have yet to prove though the application of law they have any "right" to return.

If you are able to reference a specific element of international law that directly affords the palestinians, and their descendants, refugees or not, a legal "right" to return you are welcome to do so ;--)

Kinda looks like you are up to your same old tricks and are quoting something that doesn't actually support or even discuss the subject at hand. Maybe you'd like to edit your last ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I think you missed the discussion altogether.

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

(COMMENT)

Boston1 and I were discussing "RoR" and not Transjordan. I don't think we even mentioned the ramification of RoR with Transjordan.

You may interpret the Mandate relationship any way that is easiest for you. But, until 1946, both the Emirate of Trans-Jordan and the territory of Palestine were part of the very same Mandate.

I don't think either Boston1 or I have discussed the

Transjordan was during the term of the Mandate, was directly subordinate to the Mandate. This was affirmed in each annual report, but emphasized in the 1929 Permanent Mandate Commission Meeting

Held on Friday, July 5th, 1929,

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun, British Foreign Secretary (1929):

"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."
​

While it is very true that on On May 15, 1923, Britain (through the 1923 Anglo-Jordanian Treaty) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah, it was not until 1946 Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty, ending the British Mandate over Jordan, recognizing the Emir as the Sovereign, --- and granting full independence for Transjordan.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE EMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.

ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
​

For a better understanding of the relationship, I've give you the following from Section II of the Report by HM Government:

ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE
OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1924​

2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--

"In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

"His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."
​

The Mandatory is represented in Transjordan by the Chief British Representative, assisted by two British officers and a small clerical staff. The Chief British Representative acts under the instructions of the High Commissioner for Palestine.

On the 25th April, 1923, at Amman, the High Commissioner announced that, subject to the approval of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government would recognise the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan under the rule of His Highness the Amir Abdulla, provided that such Government was constitutional and placed His Britannic Majesty's Government in a position to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the territory by means of an agreement to be concluded between the two Governments.
​

I hope this makes it easier for you. Just remember that the Foreign Secretary considered HM's Government responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine Mandate EVEN AFTER recognition as a "Independent Government."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

"montelatici, et al,

Once again, the UDHR is not law. It was never put into force. This was not corrected until 1976.

["QUOTE="montelatici, post: 13201044, member: 47237"]UNITED NATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) went into force. The applicable citation would be:

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

You will notice that there is no "absolute" RoR.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

 

[Indeependent]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

 

[Boston1]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

 

[montelatici]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

 

[Indeependent]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

 

[montelatici]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

I never copy Tinmore.

 

[Indeependent]

UNR 217 adopted by the general assembly Dec 10 1948 is a nonbonding resolution and as such, merely a suggestion or intended to lend moral support.

Quote

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legalweight, but is adopted for moral support.

End Quote

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

I never copy Tinmore.

You come up with your own irrelevant documents?
I admire that quality in a lying, Jew-Hating weasel!

 

[montelatici]

I think Monty is becoming another Tinmore.

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

I never copy Tinmore.

You come up with your own irrelevant documents?
I admire that quality in a lying, Jew-Hating weasel!

Providing relevant archival documentation that debunks Zionist propaganda does not make one a Jew hater. It makes one a truth teller.

 

[Indeependent]

I came to the conclusion that Monty wasn't able to conduct a coherent conversation and instead did things like link to sites which fail to support or in many cases directly contradict him. He also seems to enjoy randomly claiming victory when no such victory exists. I ended up putting him and leaving him on ignore.

And no, I think Tinmore at least tries and does engage in the conversation in a rational manor. If Tinmore was in a bar, I'd buy the first round and I suspect we'd have a civilized conversation. Monty on the other hand, well, ignore it is.

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

I never copy Tinmore.

You come up with your own irrelevant documents?
I admire that quality in a lying, Jew-Hating weasel!

Providing relevant archival documentation that debunks Zionist propaganda does not make one a Jew hater. It makes one a truth teller.

Why do I have more confidence in RoccoR and Boston1 than I have in you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK for whatever reason this site isn't allowing me to use quote boxes and its just cut out the body of the text and now won't allow me to correct it. Crazy but I'll try it again.

Quote from previously noted reference
149 EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS' CLAIMED RIGHT ...

Besides the general problem of relying on formally nonbinding General Assembly resolutions to support the right of return, there are problems with claims made on the Palestinians’ behalf about specific General Assembly resolutions, particularly Resolution 194. For instance, it is implied that Resolution 194, itself, states that CIL requires the return of the refugees.258 This is false, as perusal of the text demonstrates.259 Additionally, the claim that the General Assembly’s repeated references to and reenactments of Resolution 194 have transformed the Resolution from non-binding to binding cannot be correct because even today there is no consensus that valid CIL forms in that manner—that is, solely through non- binding votes in a diplomatic forum, the U.N. General Assembly. This is particularly the case here, with the issue of refugee return. The chief proponents of the theory that the General Assembly has binding, legislative authority regarding Israel and Palestinian refugees—the Arab and Muslim states— have declared for decades in diplomatic forums that international law requires the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.260 At the same time, many of these proponents have expelled large numbers of their own nationals

and resident aliens, including Palestinians;261 have refused to agree to minimal international standards regarding the treatment of refugees;262 and have denied Palestinian refugees who reside in their countries citizenship and some of the most basic of human rights.263 “Cheap talk”264 in diplomatic forums that is contradicted by states’ actual behavior when their own interests are at stake does not create CIL binding on other states.

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return.265 Thus, it is said, even if Resolution 194 lacks inherently binding force (recall that General Assembly declarations of this kind are undisputedly treated by the U.N. Charter as non- binding), nevertheless the General Assembly’s power to decide whether or not to admit new member states has made return of the 1947–49 refugees a binding obligation.266 The factual assertion underlying this claim—that the membership vote on Israel was conditional—is false. In fact, Arab representatives at the General Assembly meeting on May 11, 1949, concerning the admission of Israel, complained that Israel was admitted without having to

commit to refugee return, despite their attempts to make Israel comply.267 Moreover, those supporters of a Palestinian right of return who tie return to the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership ignore that the power of the General Assembly to make membership conditional on factors not mentioned in the Charter was debated in 1947, soon before Israel petitioned for membership and the Arab states’ position was rejected. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory legal opinion on the subject in May 1948, two weeks after Israel proclaimed its independence. According to the Court, a U.N. member called upon to vote on a state’s petition for membership is not “juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph [1]” of Article 4 of the Charter.268 The relevant Charter provision provides in full: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”269 On the basis that Israel fulfilled these written requirements, the Security Council advised that Israel be admitted,270 and the General Assembly approved Israel’s admission.271 The claim that a right of return for Palestinians was created by the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership is incorrect.

Besides the general problem of relying on formally nonbinding General Assembly resolutions to support the right of return, there are problems with claims made on the Palestinians’ behalf about specific General Assembly resolutions, particularly Resolution 194. For instance, it is implied that Resolution 194, itself, states that CIL requires the return of the refugees.258 This is false, as perusal of the text demonstrates.259 Additionally, the claim that the General Assembly’s repeated references to and reenactments of Resolution 194 have transformed the Resolution from non-binding to binding cannot be correct because even today there is no consensus that valid CIL forms in that manner—that is, solely through non- binding votes in a diplomatic forum, the U.N. General Assembly. This is particularly the case here, with the issue of refugee return. The chief proponents of the theory that the General Assembly has binding, legislative authority regarding Israel and Palestinian refugees—the Arab and Muslim states— have declared for decades in diplomatic forums that international law requires the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.260At the same time, many of these proponents have expelled large numbers of their own nationals

and resident aliens, including Palestinians;261 have refused to agree to minimal international standards regarding the treatment of refugees;262 and have denied Palestinian refugees who reside in their countries citizenship and some of the most basic of human rights.263 “Cheap talk”264 in diplomatic forums that is contradicted by states’ actual behavior when their own interests are at stake does not create CIL binding on other states.

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return
.265 Thus, it is said, even if Resolution 194 lacks inherently binding force (recall that General Assembly declarations of this kind are undisputedly treated by the U.N. Charter as non- binding), nevertheless the General Assembly’s power to decide whether or not to admit new member states has made return of the 1947–49 refugees a binding obligation.266 The factual assertion underlying this claim—that the membership vote on Israel was conditional—is false. In fact, Arab representatives at the General Assembly meeting on May 11, 1949, concerning the admission of Israel, complained that Israel was admitted without having to

commit to refugee return, despite their attempts to make Israel comply.
267 Moreover, those supporters of a Palestinian right of return who tie return to the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership ignore that the power of the General Assembly to make membership conditional on factors not mentioned in the Charter was debated in 1947, soon before Israel petitioned for membership and the Arab states’ position was rejected. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory legal opinion on the subject in May 1948, two weeks after Israel proclaimed its independence. According to the Court, a U.N. member called upon to vote on a state’s petition for membership is not “juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph [1]” of Article 4 of the Charter.
268 The relevant Charter provision provides in full: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”
269 On the basis that Israel fulfilled these written requirements, the Security Council advised that Israel be admitted,
270 and the General Assembly approved Israel’s admission.
271 The claim that a right of return for Palestinians was created by the vote on Israel’s U.N. membership is incorrect.

End Quote

So as we can all see there is no relevance to be found in CIL that stated the palestinians have any "right" to return

Yikes what a nightmare, I give up
Go to the link and read it for your bloody selves

From your link:

This fundamental and persistent uncertainty over sovereignty, authority, borders, and citizenship has rendered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unique, and international norms developed in more ordinary circumstances arguably inapplicable.​

We are looking at the conflict from the wrong angle. The pieces of the puzzle do not fit together to form a coherent picture.

Our confusion will disappear if we place the conflict within the historical framework of decolonization struggles. Violence has accompanied decolonization whenever the goal of political independence is blocked. Violence has ceased only through outside intervention. At its core the Palestinian-Israeli clash is about political independence and ending colonial status.

Palestine and Israel: A Case of Incomplete Decolonization | Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective​

-----------------------

The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story - hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people.

Accelerating the Decolonization of Palestine​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For more than a half a century, the Hostile Arab Palestinian have established and perpetuated a struggle against a decision that dates back almost a century. In fact, it will be a Century this coming May that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed. And it will be 99 Years (this coming November) since the Balfour Declaration was released.

•EXCERPT•

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return.

•EXCERPT•
The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story - hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

At the turn of the last Century (19th

20th Century) the common meaning of what colonialism was, in a practical sense, when a National Sovereign sent explorers abroad and through the "Right of Discovery and Conquest" expanded the territorial holdings of the Exploring Sovereign.

RIGHTS OF CONQUEST​

(Reference: John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the Several States of the American Union, Childs & Peterson, c1856.)

CONQUEST, international law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to the submission of its empire.

It is a general rule, that where conquered countries have laws of their own, these laws remain in force after the conquest, until they are abrogated, unless they are contrary to our religion, or enact any malum in se. In all such cases the laws of the conquering country prevail; for it is not to be presumed that laws opposed to religion or sound morals could be sanctioned. 1 Story, Const. Sec. 150, and the cases there cited.

Conquest does not, per se, give the conqueror plenum dominium et utile, but a temporary right of possession and government. 2 Gallis. R. 486; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 101. See 8 Wheat. R. 591; 2 Bay, R. 229; 2 Dall. R. 1; 12 Pet. 410.

The right which the English government claimed over the territory now composing the United States, was not founded on conquest, but discovery. Id. Sec. 152, et seq.
​

This is somewhat different as time moves on.

International Responses to Territorial Conquest​

•TWO EXCERPT•
The central problem is that the difference between conquest and aggression are occupation is largely one of intent, and perhaps success. This project assumes such intent only when clearly manifested in conduct. There are several justifications for using this stricter definition of conquest. First, defeated attempts at conquest are certainly far fewer than the hundreds of thousands of shorter territorial encroachments that could be thought of as “transient conquests.” Second, one may expect of international reaction to consummated conquests would be different from attempted ones. In the latter case, condemnation may be slow in coming as nation’s hope the victim state will deal with the situation itself. Conquest implies a certain permanence. Conquest is regarded as worse than the aggression, so one would expect on this ground criticism to be are more readily evident when the permanent intention becomes clear.

Depending on certain coding decisions, there have been somewhere between 12 and 18 forcible conquests by existing states after the adoption of the U.N Charter. International condemnation is found in only a few cases.6 Other conquests have won overwhelming international acceptance; these interestingly include both conquests of entire nations. The majority of conquests receive no clear international response.
​

There is a difference between the views at the time the event has taken place, and the evaluation well after (in this case a near century) the event and a cascade series if consequences take place. You cannot use 21st Century Logic to unravel 19th Century thinking used in the early 20th Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

I came to the conclusion that Boston was unable to accept facts and instead linked to known Hasbara propaganda sites which are devoid of fact. Since all of my posts are factual supported by archival source documentation, it is unfair for me to respond to Boston's obvious propaganda, so I will put her on ignore to avoid making a fool of him every time I respond.

Copying Tinmore does NOT make you right.
But keep on using bandwidth.
Did I tell you we all agree with you?

I never copy Tinmore.

You come up with your own irrelevant documents?
I admire that quality in a lying, Jew-Hating weasel!

Providing relevant archival documentation that debunks Zionist propaganda does not make one a Jew hater. It makes one a truth teller.

Why do I have more confidence in RoccoR and Boston1 than I have in you?

Of course you would.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For more than a half a century, the Hostile Arab Palestinian have established and perpetuated a struggle against a decision that dates back almost a century. In fact, it will be a Century this coming May that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed. And it will be 99 Years (this coming November) since the Balfour Declaration was released.

•EXCERPT•

Proponents of the Palestinian right of return also assert that Israel’s 1949 admission to membership in the U.N. was conditioned on compliance with Resolution 194, including its provisions on refugee return.

•EXCERPT•
The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story - hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

At the turn of the last Century (19th

20th Century) the common meaning of what colonialism was, in a practical sense, when a National Sovereign sent explorers abroad and through the "Right of Discovery and Conquest" expanded the territorial holdings of the Exploring Sovereign.

RIGHTS OF CONQUEST​

(Reference: John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the Several States of the American Union, Childs & Peterson, c1856.)

CONQUEST, international law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to the submission of its empire.

It is a general rule, that where conquered countries have laws of their own, these laws remain in force after the conquest, until they are abrogated, unless they are contrary to our religion, or enact any malum in se. In all such cases the laws of the conquering country prevail; for it is not to be presumed that laws opposed to religion or sound morals could be sanctioned. 1 Story, Const. Sec. 150, and the cases there cited.

Conquest does not, per se, give the conqueror plenum dominium et utile, but a temporary right of possession and government. 2 Gallis. R. 486; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 101. See 8 Wheat. R. 591; 2 Bay, R. 229; 2 Dall. R. 1; 12 Pet. 410.

The right which the English government claimed over the territory now composing the United States, was not founded on conquest, but discovery. Id. Sec. 152, et seq.
​

This is somewhat different as time moves on.

International Responses to Territorial Conquest​

•TWO EXCERPT•
The central problem is that the difference between conquest and aggression are occupation is largely one of intent, and perhaps success. This project assumes such intent only when clearly manifested in conduct. There are several justifications for using this stricter definition of conquest. First, defeated attempts at conquest are certainly far fewer than the hundreds of thousands of shorter territorial encroachments that could be thought of as “transient conquests.” Second, one may expect of international reaction to consummated conquests would be different from attempted ones. In the latter case, condemnation may be slow in coming as nation’s hope the victim state will deal with the situation itself. Conquest implies a certain permanence. Conquest is regarded as worse than the aggression, so one would expect on this ground criticism to be are more readily evident when the permanent intention becomes clear.

Depending on certain coding decisions, there have been somewhere between 12 and 18 forcible conquests by existing states after the adoption of the U.N Charter. International condemnation is found in only a few cases.6 Other conquests have won overwhelming international acceptance; these interestingly include both conquests of entire nations. The majority of conquests receive no clear international response.
​

There is a difference between the views at the time the event has taken place, and the evaluation well after (in this case a near century) the event and a cascade series if consequences take place. You cannot use 21st Century Logic to unravel 19th Century thinking used in the early 20th Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, you can use an agreement signed a few years earlier to the aggression/conquest in question, i.e. the Charter of the United Nations.