Israel and US discuss defunding of UNRWA

[Shusha]

Right to return is an individual right that applies to everybody.

You are conflating individual rights and collective rights. Individual rights belong only to people who were directly affected by the events and had a measurable loss because of them. You can argue that individuals have the right to return to property that actually belonged to them -- that they have the right to recover their loss. And if you argued that, I would agree with you. I believe everyone affected by the conflict (or their heirs) has a right to recover their loss.

But you are also demanding collective rights -- that is rights for everyone who belongs to the collective, regardless of whether or not they can individually establish loss. I don't have a problem with this either. I believe in collective rights -- especially the collective rights of indigenous peoples. But those collective rights are different from individual rights. They belong to the collective and as such, are mitigated by circumstances -- most especially the rights of other collectives.

The problem with your insistence upon the right of return intergenerationally is that it doesn't consider the competing rights of other collectives. In fact, it specifically denies and refuses the rights of other collectives. That's a problem.

 

[Humanity]

Rumor has it Israel is going to make a push at the UN to have UNRWA defunded and dissolved, and hopes the US will support her by withdrawing funding from the organization. Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely meets with US administration and members of Congress this week to discuss.

She claims the return of refugees (and all their descendants) is a key obstacle to peace, and if that option was removed from the Palestinian mindset, peace would be more likely achievable. She claims (and I agree wholeheartedly) that the return of the refugees descendants is intended primarily to reverse Jewish self-determination and destroy the nation of Israel.

I'll also point out that the idea of refugee status being a hereditary condition is unprecedented in history and in international law.

Oh boy... Do I have issues with this one!

I have read some of your comments to other posts so I'm not going to try and ask the same questions...

It just all seems to come back to semantics and, in my honest opinion, that just doesn't work!

 

[Shusha]

Oh boy... Do I have issues with this one!

I have read some of your comments to other posts so I'm not going to try and ask the same questions...

It just all seems to come back to semantics and, in my honest opinion, that just doesn't work!

The return of five million Palestinians into Israel as an obstacle to peace is just semantics?!

 

[fanger]

Was your grandmother or great-grandfather born in Italy? Was your grandfather born in Ireland? Or maybe your mother or grandfather (even up to a great-great-grandfather) was born in India. These are some of the countries that allow descendants of their diasporas (citizens and/or residents who left the country to live somewhere else, voluntarily or sometimes otherwise) to apply for citizenship under less stringent requirements than the average person.
Ancestral Discoveries: "Right of Return": Citizenship by Descent

 

[P F Tinmore]

Right to return is an individual right that applies to everybody.

You are conflating individual rights and collective rights. Individual rights belong only to people who were directly affected by the events and had a measurable loss because of them. You can argue that individuals have the right to return to property that actually belonged to them -- that they have the right to recover their loss. And if you argued that, I would agree with you. I believe everyone affected by the conflict (or their heirs) has a right to recover their loss.

But you are also demanding collective rights -- that is rights for everyone who belongs to the collective, regardless of whether or not they can individually establish loss. I don't have a problem with this either. I believe in collective rights -- especially the collective rights of indigenous peoples. But those collective rights are different from individual rights. They belong to the collective and as such, are mitigated by circumstances -- most especially the rights of other collectives.

The problem with your insistence upon the right of return intergenerationally is that it doesn't consider the competing rights of other collectives. In fact, it specifically denies and refuses the rights of other collectives. That's a problem.

You can argue that individuals have the right to return to property that actually belonged to them

A home does not require the ownership of property. If you rent a house it is the landlords house but it is your home. He cannot enter without your permission. A renter or even a homeless person has the same right to country as someone who owns property.

 

[fanger]

The Law of Return is legislation enacted by Israel in 1950, that gives all Jews, persons of Jewish ancestry up to at least one Jewish grandparent, and spouses of Jews the right to immigrate to and settle in Israel and obtain citizenship, and obliges the Israeli government to facilitate their immigration. Originally, the law applied to Jews only, until a 1970 amendment stated that the rights "are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew". This resulted in several hundreds of thousands of persons fitting the above criteria immigrating to Israel (mainly from the former Soviet Union) but not being recognized as Jews by the Israeli religious authorities, which on the basis of halakha recognize only the child of a Jewish mother as being Jewish. Moreover, some of these immigrants, though having a Jewish grandparent, are known to be practicing Christians. People who would be otherwise eligible for this law can be excluded if they can reasonably be considered to constitute a danger to the welfare of the state, have a criminal past, or are wanted fugitives in their countries with the exception of persecution victims. Jews who converted to another religion can also be denied the right of return. Since 1950 2,734,245 Jews have immigrated to Israel.

Right of return - Wikipedia

 

[Humanity]

Oh boy... Do I have issues with this one!

I have read some of your comments to other posts so I'm not going to try and ask the same questions...

It just all seems to come back to semantics and, in my honest opinion, that just doesn't work!

The return of five million Palestinians into Israel as an obstacle to peace is just semantics?!

No no... You are just taking a very small piece from your OP.

"Right of return"

Seems it's ok for Jews to return to "Jewish land" because, historically, it was "Jewish land" despite the fact that, for some, there were no close connections to the land but it's not ok for Palestinians....

Cemented by your comment "the idea of refugee status being a hereditary condition is unprecedented in history and in international law"

Now, I know that you are going to argue this until the cows come home, hence my not really wanting to get involved in this 'argument' and achieve nothing based upon semantics!

I read in a comment you posted where you mentioned "Jewish land"... I'm unclear on how land can be classified as 'religious'? I live in a predominantly 'catholic' land... Does that mean that 'catholics' have some kind of 'right of return'?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Was your grandmother or great-grandfather born in Italy? Was your grandfather born in Ireland? Or maybe your mother or grandfather (even up to a great-great-grandfather) was born in India. These are some of the countries that allow descendants of their diasporas (citizens and/or residents who left the country to live somewhere else, voluntarily or sometimes otherwise) to apply for citizenship under less stringent requirements than the average person.
Ancestral Discoveries: "Right of Return": Citizenship by Descent

The important thing is the required proof of ancestral citizenship. Israel, unlike all of these other countries, does not require this proof.

 

[Shusha]

Oh boy... Do I have issues with this one!

I have read some of your comments to other posts so I'm not going to try and ask the same questions...

It just all seems to come back to semantics and, in my honest opinion, that just doesn't work!

The return of five million Palestinians into Israel as an obstacle to peace is just semantics?!

No no... You are just taking a very small piece from your OP.

"Right of return"

Seems it's ok for Jews to return to "Jewish land" because, historically, it was "Jewish land" despite the fact that, for some, there were no close connections to the land but it's not ok for Palestinians....

Cemented by your comment "the idea of refugee status being a hereditary condition is unprecedented in history and in international law"

Now, I know that you are going to argue this until the cows come home, hence my not really wanting to get involved in this 'argument' and achieve nothing based upon semantics!

I read in a comment you posted where you mentioned "Jewish land"... I'm unclear on how land can be classified as 'religious'? I live in a predominantly 'catholic' land... Does that mean that 'catholics' have some kind of 'right of return'?

Wow. Did you ever totally misread my post about "Jewish land".

 

[Shusha]

"Right of return"

Seems it's ok for Jews to return to "Jewish land" because, historically, it was "Jewish land" despite the fact that, for some, there were no close connections to the land but it's not ok for Palestinians....

Cemented by your comment "the idea of refugee status being a hereditary condition is unprecedented in history and in international law"

Now, I know that you are going to argue this until the cows come home, hence my not really wanting to get involved in this 'argument' and achieve nothing based upon semantics!

I read in a comment you posted where you mentioned "Jewish land"... I'm unclear on how land can be classified as 'religious'? I live in a predominantly 'catholic' land... Does that mean that 'catholics' have some kind of 'right of return'?

You seem to be completely misunderstanding my position, so please allow me to clarify. First of all, my use of the term "Jewish" on this board relates specifically and exclusively to the Jewish ethnicity and culture. This is on par with my use of the term Arab Palestinian which also refers to ethnicity and culture. (Religion is a component of ethnicity, but does not define it. PLEASE! Do not tell me you subscribe to the bizarre notion that "Jewish" is only a religion and therefore does not qualify for rights the way that other peoples, especially indigenous peoples, do. All my respect for you will be lost if you say this is so.) If I wish to specifically address the religion I will use the terms Judaism and Islam or Muslim.

The idea of refugee status as a hereditary condition IS something unprecedented in history and international law. It applies SOLELY to the Palestinian people. For all other refugees it is an individual concern and not a collective one. For all other refugees, the condition ends when they are repatriated (rare), or when they are resettled. There is absolutely no reason for the Palestinian peoples to be given special consideration which no other peoples have..

Finally, there is no such thing as "Jewish land". That was a trap set for Tinmore. It has nothing to do with my belief system. There is also no such thing as "Palestinian land". Sovereignty over land is a legal concept, nothing more. People, collectively, have no inherent rights to specific territories and sovereignty is a function of negotiation between governments, nothing more. Borders and States and agreements between States are fluid based on the changing needs of the cultures involved. And that is okay. It is okay for a people to get together with another people and form a sovereign union for as long as it works for them (Czechoslovakia) and it is also okay for a people to separate from another people and form two new States (Czech Republic and Slovakia). States and governments should serve the people in that way.

Peoples, however, collectively DO have rights. Including the right to self-determination and self-government on ancestral and historical territory. This applies to ALL peoples. It applies to the Palestinian people. And it applies to the Jewish people. This does not mean that it is a zero sum game where only one can have territory. Because the POINT is not the territory -- its the ability to self-determine and self-govern.

The struggle I have on this board has NOTHING to do with borders, or territory or semantics. The struggle that I have, that Israel has, that the Jewish people have is with having the Arabs accept Jewish rights.

Does that make it more clear?

 

[rylah]

Was your grandmother or great-grandfather born in Italy? Was your grandfather born in Ireland? Or maybe your mother or grandfather (even up to a great-great-grandfather) was born in India. These are some of the countries that allow descendants of their diasporas (citizens and/or residents who left the country to live somewhere else, voluntarily or sometimes otherwise) to apply for citizenship under less stringent requirements than the average person.
Ancestral Discoveries: "Right of Return": Citizenship by Descent

The important thing is the required proof of ancestral citizenship. Israel, unlike all of these other countries, does not require this proof.

Jews are not required, and don't need to have Roman or Ottoman citizenship to live in Israel.
A really simple concept.

 

[Shusha]

And lets look at "obstacles to peace".

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

If the presence of Jewish people is an obstacle to peace, why is the presence of Palestinian Arabs not an obstacle to peace? Why would the return of Palestinian descendants therefore lead to peace?

On the one hand, Team Palestine is insisting that there be no Jewish presence on Palestinian soil while insisting one the massive influx of five million Palestinians to Jewish soil and that the former is an obstacle to peace, while the later will lead to peace. Its a silly argument.

If we are to preserve the integrity of the thing which MATTERS -- which is the self-determination and the self-government of BOTH peoples -- we must do two things. 1. We must allow that both populations should be primarily ethnically homogeneous and 2. that they need not be exclusively so as long as they recognize the other's rights.

 

[Shusha]

The important thing is the required proof of ancestral citizenship. Israel, unlike all of these other countries, does not require this proof.

The preservation of the unique and distinct Jewish culture IS proof of ancestral citizenship.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And lets look at "obstacles to peace".

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

If the presence of Jewish people is an obstacle to peace, why is the presence of Palestinian Arabs not an obstacle to peace? Why would the return of Palestinian descendants therefore lead to peace?

On the one hand, Team Palestine is insisting that there be no Jewish presence on Palestinians soil while insisting one the massive influx of five million Palestinians to Jewish soil and that the former is an obstacle to peace, while the later will lead to peace. Its a silly argument.

If we are to preserve the integrity of the thing which MATTERS -- which is the self-determination and the self-government of BOTH peoples -- we must do two things. 1. We must allow that both populations should be primarily ethnically homogeneous and 2. that they need not be exclusively so as long as they recognize the other's rights.

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

False premise.

 

[Shusha]

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

False premise.

How so?

 

[rylah]

And lets look at "obstacles to peace".

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

If the presence of Jewish people is an obstacle to peace, why is the presence of Palestinian Arabs not an obstacle to peace? Why would the return of Palestinian descendants therefore lead to peace?

On the one hand, Team Palestine is insisting that there be no Jewish presence on Palestinian soil while insisting one the massive influx of five million Palestinians to Jewish soil and that the former is an obstacle to peace, while the later will lead to peace. Its a silly argument.

Agree with every word.

If we are to preserve the integrity of the thing which MATTERS -- which is the self-determination and the self-government of BOTH peoples -- we must do two things. 1. We must allow that both populations should be primarily ethnically homogeneous and 2. that they need not be exclusively so as long as they recognize the other's rights.

Can't agree at all.
I'm an Israeli, just can't imagine Israel without Arabs. Can't imagine Hebron without Jews. It's disastrous, and I'm not buying into that logic only because Hamas and Fatah sell it as peace.

 

[Shusha]

Can't agree at all. I'm an Israeli, just can't imagine Israel without Arabs. Can't imagine Hebron without Jews. It's disastrous, and I'm not buying into that logic only because Hamas and Fatah sell it as peace.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Israel should include Arabs. Palestine should include Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

According to the Palestinians and their supporters -- the presence of Jewish people on "Palestinian land" (ie land which may or may not be eventually under a separate Palestinian sovereignty) is an obstacle to peace.

False premise.

How so?

It is not the presence of Jews. It is the presence of Israel.
You keep getting that confused.

 

[rylah]

Can't agree at all. I'm an Israeli, just can't imagine Israel without Arabs. Can't imagine Hebron without Jews. It's disastrous, and I'm not buying into that logic only because Hamas and Fatah sell it as peace.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Israel should include Arabs. Palestine should include Jews.

Wait a second, when I hear 'Palestine' in the contemporary jargon, I understand:

1."ethnically homogeneous" - aka another diverse Arab state.
2.Jews out, it's all Palestine, back to Ottoman days at best.

Unrwa is exactly that. And even tinmore knows I would support Arabs reuniting with their families in Israel. But not on the terms of the Palestinian racketeers. It's a Jewish Homeland.

 

[Shusha]

It is not the presence of Jews. It is the presence of Israel.
You keep getting that confused.

And the difference is what?