Is the Right of Return an Intergenerational Right?

[Shusha]

No.

And the simple reason is - how far back do you go? How do you prove that right? ... What if you are only partially descended from the original claimants - a fraction of the blood?

The criteria is not (should not be) how far back you go. It is not a function of the time passed -- but whether or not the group in question maintains their unique and recognizable culture. Whether one belongs to the group or not depends on both self-identification and acceptance by the group.

 

[montelatici]

Nonsense

general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.

list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)

Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law

;--)

The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.

It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.

So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?

Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.

 

[Boston1]

Nonsense

general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.

list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)

Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law

;--)

The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.

It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.

So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?

Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.

You are blinded by hatred

NO general assembly resolution is binding including 181

But of course Israel and the land it contains wasn't awarded to them by UN resolution. It was land the Arabs lost in numerous acts of aggression. The Israeli's are simply the survivors.

See
United Nations Resolutions - Myths and Facts

Quote
UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].

Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.

Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:

“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2

Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:

“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3

Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been just as resolved in rejecting what he labeled the “illusion” that a General Assembly resolution can have “legislative effect.”4

Academics and renowned international law experts also agree. Professor Julius Stone illuminates this subject by pointing out:

“In his book The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations, Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz5 is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to enact or to ‘declare' or ‘determine' or ‘interpret' international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.”6
End Quote

Even security council resolutions are not nescessarily binding depending on what chapter they are listed under.

You've been shown this information again and again, its pretty obvious that your hatred, bigoted and racist views are blinding you to even the most basic of facts.

 

[montelatici]

As stated, General Assembly Resolution 194 is only one of the 8 bases that confers the right of return to the Palestinians under International Law. The other 7 are sufficient.

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

There is no hate or bigotry or racism associated with asserting that the Palestinians have a right to return to their homes. It is hateful, bigoted and racist to claim they do not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nonsense

general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.

list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)

Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law

;--)

The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.

It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.

So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?

Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.

You are blinded by hatred

NO general assembly resolution is binding including 181

But of course Israel and the land it contains wasn't awarded to them by UN resolution. It was land the Arabs lost in numerous acts of aggression. The Israeli's are simply the survivors.

See
United Nations Resolutions - Myths and Facts

Quote
UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].

Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.

Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:

“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2

Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:

“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3

Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been just as resolved in rejecting what he labeled the “illusion” that a General Assembly resolution can have “legislative effect.”4

Academics and renowned international law experts also agree. Professor Julius Stone illuminates this subject by pointing out:

“In his book The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations, Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz5 is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to enact or to ‘declare' or ‘determine' or ‘interpret' international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.”6
End Quote

Even security council resolutions are not nescessarily binding depending on what chapter they are listed under.

You've been shown this information again and again, its pretty obvious that your hatred, bigoted and racist views are blinding you to even the most basic of facts.

Indeed, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding and they cannot create law.

However, many resolutions are based on already existing international law that is binding with or without a resolution.

 

[Boston1]

As stated, General Assembly Resolution 194 is only one of the 8 bases that confers the right of return to the Palestinians under International Law. The other 7 are sufficient.

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

There is no hate or bigotry or racism associated with asserting that the Palestinians have a right to return to their homes. It is hateful, bigoted and racist to claim they do not.

Oh this is going to be good ;--) go for it Monty, list your 8 points of international law.

Oh and that general assembly resolution. ISN'T BINDING

You've been told that countless times and seem to be emotionally incapable of accepting simple facts.

see
United Nations General Assembly resolution
and
The Role of the UN General Assembly in the International ...

Quote
Set aside their certainly compulsory effects within the UN, the so-called
in-ternal law
of an international organization, no tribunal has ever reached the conclu-sion that the General Assembly has a general implied power to make law. Actually, in its 1966 decision on South West Africa, the ICJ remarked flatly and clearly that whatever persuasive force Assembly resolutions might possess, this force operated on the political and not the legal level
End Quote

 

[Boston1]

Nonsense

general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.

list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)

Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law

;--)

The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.

It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.

So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?

Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.

You are blinded by hatred

NO general assembly resolution is binding including 181

But of course Israel and the land it contains wasn't awarded to them by UN resolution. It was land the Arabs lost in numerous acts of aggression. The Israeli's are simply the survivors.

See
United Nations Resolutions - Myths and Facts

Quote
UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].

Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.

Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:

“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2

Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:

“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3

Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been just as resolved in rejecting what he labeled the “illusion” that a General Assembly resolution can have “legislative effect.”4

Academics and renowned international law experts also agree. Professor Julius Stone illuminates this subject by pointing out:

“In his book The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations, Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz5 is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to enact or to ‘declare' or ‘determine' or ‘interpret' international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.”6
End Quote

Even security council resolutions are not nescessarily binding depending on what chapter they are listed under.

You've been shown this information again and again, its pretty obvious that your hatred, bigoted and racist views are blinding you to even the most basic of facts.

Indeed, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding and they cannot create law.

However, many resolutions are based on already existing international law that is binding with or without a resolution.

Go for it, lets hear what you believe in international law specifically applies to the palestinians ;--) I'm all ears

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

As interesting as the Cambridge Journal (International and Comparative Law) is, the dissertation is just that a long essay on a particular subject. In this case, the dissertation is not the definitive document. In fact, if you go to the International Law Commission to find the "Nationality in relation to the succession of States" final report, you will notice it is still in draft form. That is because, the concept is quite divisive. BUT, as you can see, I looked it up. And I found it to be great work (a hell of a lot of work) representing countless manhours.

AND the very first Article (Article 1 - Page 160) Says:

PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1. Right to a nationality​

Every individual who, on the date of the succession of States, had the nationality of the predecessor State, irrespective of the mode of acquisition of that nationality, has the right to the nationality of at least one of the States concerned, in accordance with the present draft articles.​

You will notice that the Article stipulates that the nationality is "least one of the States concerned."

The legal bases for return can be found in eight branches of international law: (1) inter-State nationality law, (2) law of State succession, (3) human rights law, (4) humanitarian law, (5) law of State responsibility, (6) refugee law, (7) UN law, and (8) natural/customary law. These legal foundations are briefly highlighted here.

(COMMENT)

Nationality Law is a generic term that is case dependent on the individual domestic law which defines the rights and obligations of citizenship within that unique jurisdiction. In the case of Palestine, that last Citizenship Order was issued in 1925 (as amended).

The Cambridge Journal jumps right to the conclusion that the refugee MUST acquire Israeli citizenship. That is a totally false conclusion. In the first approximation, the could remain a Citizen of the Trusteeship (formerly the Mandate) --- OR --- in the scenario presented, a Citizen of Israel.

In regards to (3) human rights law, (4) humanitarian law, --- they are slightly different things. Many people confuse these two classes all the time.

• International Human Rights Law (IHRL) as placed in the context of our discussion revolves around: i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and iii) Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

• International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as placed in the context of our discussion revolves around:

∆ 1949 Conventions and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries

∆ Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

• Geneva Convention (I) on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,1949 and its commentary 12.08.1949
• Geneva Convention (II) on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949 and its commentary 12.08.1949
• Geneva Convention (III) on Prisoners of War, 1949 and its commentary 12.08.1949
• Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 and its commentary 12.08.1949
• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary 08.06.1977
  • Annex (I) AP (I), as amended in 1993 and its commentary 30.11.1993
  • Annex (I) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary 08.06.1977
  • Annex (II) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary 08.06.1977
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary 08.06.1977
• Additional Protocol (III) to the Geneva Conventions, 2005 and its commentary 08.12.2005

In regard to "Law of State Responsibility" I went to STATE RESPONSIBILITY DOCUMENT A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1–7* --- First report on State responsibility, by Mr. James Crawford, Special Rapporteur. You will notice, right off the bat, that "State Responsibility" has almost nothing to do directly with Nationality or Citizenship.

This is a very different thing altogether. This is about the mechanism in criminal responsibility under international law; Peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens); Obligations erga omnes; AND
Possible approaches to international crimes of States... Just to name a few things. It has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

In reference to International Refugee Law (IT GETs INTERESTING), this is because this is one of those gray areas where the Hostile Arab Palestinian wants to pick and choose what applies to them, and what does not apply to them.

International refugee law


International refugee law is a set of rules and procedures that aims to protect, first, persons seeking asylum from persecution, and second those recognized as refugees under the relevant instruments. Its legal framework provides a distinct set of guarantees for these specific groups of persons, although, inevitably, this legal protection overlaps to a certain extent with international human rights law as well as the legal regime applicable to armed conflicts under international humanitarian law.

The main sources of refugee law is the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees --- the 1951 Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, --- and customary international law.

• The Definition of a Refugee
• The principle of “non-refoulement”
• Internally displaced persons
​

Seldom, if really ever, does the shotgun approach used by the Cambridge Dissertation, do anything for any of those that are familiar with the topic. Sometimes, articles such as this cause more arguments then answering questions. For instance, the article says:

"The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, under which Turkey relinquished its title to Palestine, provided the basis for the Palestine inhabitants’ nationality."

Nothing in Article 16 of the Treaty, in which Turkey renounces title and rights, stipulates anything of the sort. It says the future is to be determined by the Allied Powers.
​

What is important to remember that the territories that were to eventually become Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the State of Palestine, were all part of two states, the Vilayet of Syria and the Vilayet of Beruit [teach a major Province with its own governor (with the exception of Jerusalem)]. Prior to the Allied Powers establishing the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, they "habitual residents" were all part of a single Ottoman Province (State). A vast majority of the residents changed citizenship as individually these five territories gained independence.

What appears to be a quasi-official Palestinian position, which has evolved over time --- depending on what facet garners the most support, is that the refugees have a "right to return" to their original homes, to be compensated for any loss or damage to their property and to be paid damages for their suffering over the past half century.

The Palestinians regime in place today, has a belief that the "Refugee Issue" should be solved as a separate and distinct matter whether of not a final determination to the Arab-Israeli conflict presents itself. Of course the Israelis see this as a political ploy; to avoid a permanent settlement and to continue the conflict until the Hostile Arab Palestinian eventually evict the Jewish People and overturn the most economically, scientifically and commercially successful government ever to develop in the immediate region.

In any event, there are only a very few points of discussion worth carrying forward from this essay you have copied. The rest is window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Shusha]

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.

It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.

If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha,

That would be all the displaced Jewish people AND their Descendants.

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.

It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.

If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.

(COMMENT)

We wouldn't want to forget them!!!

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.

It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.

If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

 

[Boston1]

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.

It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.

If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Another revisionist lie.

You have nothing to substantiate this claim. But I do like the admission that the Muslims did invade from Arabia ;--)

Shot yourself in the foot again Monty ;--)

 

[Shusha]

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?

 

[montelatici]

How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.

Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.

It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.

If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Another revisionist lie.

You have nothing to substantiate this claim. But I do like the admission that the Muslims did invade from Arabia ;--)

Shot yourself in the foot again Monty ;--)

Actually, you shot yourself in the foot. Palaestina Prima, which is what it was called, was 100% Christian when the Arabs defeated the Romans and conquered the province.

 

[montelatici]

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?

Because Christianity had become the state religion of Rome several centuries earlier and those of all religions, converted to Christianity at that time.

 

[Shusha]

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?

Because Christianity had become the state religion of Rome several centuries earlier and those of all religions, converted to Christianity at that time.

Right. Because before they were invanded and conquored by the Muslims, they were invaded and conquored by the Romans.

So, again, by your own argument, how could the native people living in Palestine have lost land through their aggression when invaded by the Romans? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion from another continent.

The Jewish people were the native people, by your own continued admission. If you are arguing for an intergenerational right to return -- you are arguing FOR the right of return for Jewish people who were displaced and ALL of their descendants to their place of origin and native homeland.

 

[montelatici]

But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?

Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?

Because Christianity had become the state religion of Rome several centuries earlier and those of all religions, converted to Christianity at that time.

Right. Because before they were invanded and conquored by the Muslims, they were invaded and conquored by the Romans.

So, again, by your own argument, how could the native people living in Palestine have lost land through their aggression when invaded by the Romans? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion from another continent.

The Jewish people were the native people, by your own continued admission. If you are arguing for an intergenerational right to return -- you are arguing FOR the right of return for Jewish people who were displaced and ALL of their descendants to their place of origin and native homeland.

I think you need to keep off the sauce. The Jews, Samaritans, Canaanites, Greeks and others living in the area did not lose any land, they simply changed religions through the centuries. There were many different people living in what is now called Palestine when the Romans arrived. Heck, King Herod was an Arab FFS.

 

[Shusha]

The Jews, Samaritans, Canaanites, Greeks and others living in the area did not lose any land, they simply changed religions through the centuries. There were many different people living in what is now called Palestine when the Romans arrived. Heck, King Herod was an Arab FFS.

Sure. You wanna go that direction? No problem . The Palestinians living in the area did not lose any land. They simply changed religion and political control in the last century. There were many different people living in the land when the Jewish people arrived (really returned) in what is now called Israel.

Again, your own argument works against you and defeats you. If a group moves into a territory through conquest and changes the demographics and culture of the place -- then they, according to your argument, assume the full rights of being indigenous. So the Jewish people, having done that successfully, are now the indigenous people.

No matter which way you cut it, your argument fails. And it fails, in all instances, because your goal is not to apply a consistent set of criteria to all groups but to create justifications for denying one specific group.

 

[montelatici]

The Jews, Samaritans, Canaanites, Greeks and others living in the area did not lose any land, they simply changed religions through the centuries. There were many different people living in what is now called Palestine when the Romans arrived. Heck, King Herod was an Arab FFS.

Sure. You wanna go that direction? No problem . The Palestinians living in the area did not lose any land. They simply changed religion and political control in the last century. There were many different people living in the land when the Jewish people arrived (really returned) in what is now called Israel.

Again, your own argument works against you and defeats you. If a group moves into a territory through conquest and changes the demographics and culture of the place -- then they, according to your argument, assume the full rights of being indigenous. So the Jewish people, having done that successfully, are now the indigenous people.

No matter which way you cut it, your argument fails. And it fails, in all instances, because your goal is not to apply a consistent set of criteria to all groups but to create justifications for denying one specific group.

The Palestinians did not change religion. The Christians and Muslims were 99% of the population when the European Jews began their invasion of Palestine. They were less than 10% at the beginning of the Mandate after decades of migration/invasion.

The Palestinians did lose land, they owned 95% of the land prior to 1948 and now they own little or none.

Clearly the Europeans that invaded Palestine came from Europe. Their claim that over 2,000 years ago they had a relative in what was then Palaestina, is akin to fantasy and science fiction.

The only fail is your attempt to change the facts. LOL

 

[Boston1]

The real fail is your attempt to change the subject every time you are proven wrong. Your typical response is to make one wild and unsubstantiated claim after another and change the subject.

So let me reiterate.
The palestinians have NO RIGHT OF RETURN.

Unless of course you can show within international law that they do ;--)