Let us discuss this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?

[Shusha]

I think it might be very important to define our terms here when discussing "refugees". I do not consider anyone to be a "refugee" unless they are living in a condition of statelessness. This is differentiated from displaced peoples, and descendants of displaced peoples. who may be eligible for compensation or some sort of restitution.

I think it is also important to note that polls show MOST displaced Arab Palestinians would be happy to accept compensation and a home in Gaza or Palestine as fair remedy for their loss. Only about 10% of displaced Arab Palestinians and their descendants insist on returning to the exact location they were displaced from. And there is absolutely NO requirement in international law for this. Typically international law says that returnees must be permitted to return to the nation -- not to the specific piece of land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.

I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.

 

[Shusha]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.

I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.

Sure. That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents). But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents. So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.

I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.

Sure. That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents). But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents. So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

Refugees have the right to choose: return, settlement in host country, and settlement in a third country. Return is the legal obligation of their home state. The other two are at the discretion of the other countries.

 

[Hollie]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.

I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.

Sure. That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents). But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents. So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.

The "country of Pally'land"?

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.

I would argue that all three States (Israel, Palestine and Gaza) would have a legal obligation -- not just Israel. And since Israel has already taken full responsibility for nearly a million people who were displaced in the conflict, her obligation is largely fulfilled.

Israel is a recognized State, by the United Nation.

Neither Gaza, nor Palestine are yet recognized by the UN as States.

The "State of Palestine" is at the UN as an observer .
Abbas is trying to force a State recognition without negotiating with Israel, as per the Oslo Accords signed by Arafat.

None of the Arab countries will make it easier on their Arab bothers by ending their refugee status and allowing all who have been born on the land become citizens of their countries.

Neither in Gaza, nor in the PA, the leaders have any intention of ending the refugee issue by turning Gaza into a State, which could have been done once Israel withdrew in 2005.

All Abbas has to do is sit down and negotiate.
Areas A and B will be the State of Palestine, if they so wish.

It will put an end to UNWRA.
UNWRA will be not happy about it at all. They like the job, and the paychecks.

 

[Sixties Fan]

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

Refugees have the right to choose: return, settlement in host country, and settlement in a third country. Return is the legal obligation of their home state. The other two are at the discretion of the other countries.

Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

It is not one size fits for the Palestinians, but not for all.

Many Palestinians want to become citizens of their host countries.
But their host countries will not allow them to do so.
No decent jobs, no schools, no good housing.

There is something you should ask all the Arab host countries about:

WHY do you not allow those who want to become Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, etc, to become citizens of these countries and let them become a positive contribution to the countries they were born in.

Time for all the Arab countries to embrace their Arab brothers and put an end to the refugee problem.

No more than about 20,000 Arabs are left of those who were told to flee Israel, or ended up being expelled.
Their descendants do not count, anymore than they would if they were not Arabs who fled on May 15, 1948.

Many did not, and they contribute to the country they chose to stay in.

All Jewish refugees from Europe and the Arab countries have been taken care of.

Time for the Arab countries to do the same with their refugees.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?

 

[Sixties Fan]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.

I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.

Sure. That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents). But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents. So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.

Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.

Exactly when was the "country" of Palestine founded?
It is not mentioned anywhere in history.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Muslim, Crusader, Ottoman or British records before the Mandate for Palestine.

The inhabitants did not call themselves Palestinians before the mandate for Palestine started granting anyone, Jews, Muslims, etc, a Palestinian (for the Mandate) passport for travel.

Then, the right of return would apply to all Jews from Arab, Iranian countries, and from Europe to be allowed to return to the lands, or homes they left, also for whichever reason?

The Nationality of "Palestinians" has only existed since 1964, after Arafat adopted it as a way to delegitimize Israel.

That is what the "Nationality of Palestine", as far it being referred to Arabs only, is all about.

During the Mandate, all who lived there were known as Palestinians.
Because of the Mandate, and nothing else.
The Mandate which was to recreate the Jewish State, for the Jewish People on their ancient Jewish Homeland.

Where Jews remained a presence during all the 3800 years Judaism has existed.

But now, some call the whole of Israel "Palestine" because the Muslims, who hate Jews, want to see an end to a sovereign Jewish State, where it belongs.

Hurray for the endless hatred for Jews. 2000 years and growing.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?

Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.

Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.

The Muslims do not want them. The Jews would never return.
They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.

Thanks for the thought though.

But I would say that the Jews would say:

Thanks, but no thanks.

Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.

Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.

Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell. It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.

The Arab leaders. What a bunch !

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?

Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.

Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.

The Muslims do not want them. The Jews would never return.
They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.

Thanks for the thought though.

But I would say that the Jews would say:

Thanks, but no thanks.

Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.

Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.

Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell. It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.

The Arab leaders. What a bunch !

So then, what are you bitching about?

 

[Indeependent]

Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?

Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.

Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.

The Muslims do not want them. The Jews would never return.
They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.

Thanks for the thought though.

But I would say that the Jews would say:

Thanks, but no thanks.

Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.

Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.

Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell. It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.

The Arab leaders. What a bunch !

So then, what are you bitching about?

It seems to me that you're the one who's constantly complaining.
But what can I expect from a Muslim imbecile living in the US.

 

[Lipush]

All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.

And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80? In your own words without any cutting and pasting?

It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.

I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.

I don't think it is that simple.

The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state. In other words they are calling for expelling. Likewise...they are and have been killing.

I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.

Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.

Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.

Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?

The best solution for the Palestinians will be realizing that the Israelis are NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

Stop being stuck on 1948. You cannot return to those times anymore than you can force a full developed newborn back to its mother's womb.

Israel exists. Deal with it.

 

[Lipush]

And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80? In your own words without any cutting and pasting?

It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.

I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.

I don't think it is that simple.

The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state. In other words they are calling for expelling. Likewise...they are and have been killing.

I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.

Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.

Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.

Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?

The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago. And in the meantime a state has been established. You can't unwind it.

There is also another aspect that is ignored. It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land. It isn't just that. It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage. During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land. But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people. There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders. But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration. Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous. There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in. Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans? And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?

I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices. You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it. That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear. It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice, it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states. So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.

You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?

Israek created a massive problem, huh.

Israel is in conflict with itself?

It always amazes me how you think Palestinian are retarded, backforward, primitive creatures who have no responsibility over anything and don't know jack about what they do.

Considering you're pro-Palestinian, that's almost sad.

 

[Lipush]

Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you. The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty. Yes or no?

It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.

Answer the question.

Your link is dead.

I know. I fixed it. I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".

Why should the Palestinians divide their territory. They have been saying no to that since 1937. You would think people would get the hint.

Why should I give up my house, for that matter? That land belonged to my family since the previous century?

 

[Lipush]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

Hang on a second!

Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.

That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.

 

[Lipush]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

The issue of the refugees is only been perpetuated by the Arabs in order to destroy Israel.

Never in history, including Jews or any Muslims or Arabs, have a people been kept as refugees beyond the generation which was indeed forced to flee any war, etc.

Check the definition for the word refugees.

Then look at the UNWRA created definition of refugees reserved for only those who were expelled during the war originated by the Arabs leaders in order to destroy Israel.

Only one definition is valid.

Jews were forced to become refugees from Europe with WWII and from all Arab/Muslim countries from 1948 on.

There isn't one Jewish person who continues to call themselves refugees, or makes any demands to return to their original homes, even those who are still living.

The refugees from Syria, and other places are looking for a new place to live, to move on.

That is what being a refugee means.

It means that one does not get to return to where one came from, for the most part, especially while a war continues in the area.

Many Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel, due to family.
Israel allowed that.

No Jews have been allowed back into Jordan, Gaza and many areas of Judea and Samaria where they lived, had homes, etc, as they were taken over by the Arabs from 1948 to 1967.

There are refugees from the Arab side?

There are definitely Jewish refugees, forced at gun point, from Judea, Samaria, Jordan and even Gaza.

In other words, the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is even greater than the number of Arabs told by their leaders or expelled due to violence towards Israel.

One solution is to just call the refugee issue even.

But the Arab Leaders will never accept that. As they will never accept Israel.

^
l
l
l
l

I don't know who this guy is, but I love him!

 

[Lipush]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.

Good call. We agree. Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country. That must be resolved.

We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.

Oh, cheap shot....??

"stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?

Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?

Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry

In Gaza there are ":refugee camps".

Now, look for the definition of refugees, people who have been forced to leave their natural state.

But Gaza belongs to the "Palestinian state", and they live there, so how can they be refugees, if they're in their home territory?

That's like saying the people who were expelled from Gush Katif (who live inside the green line) are refugees.

Oh, oh, you mean, refugees from the "complete land of Palestine"? But that certain state never existed, And you cannot be a refugee from a place that never was.

So once the terminiology itself is less sinning to reality, we can move on to more important stuff.

 

[Shusha]

It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.

Palestine, when it becomes a State, is welcome to invite back anyone it wants to. But if you are trying to argue that Israel is obligated to accept anyone who left the territory at any time and for any reason, you are foolishly mistaken, both in terms of international law and in terms of "facts on the ground".

We (collective we) are obligated to ensure that people have their basic human rights met. Those human rights do not extend to unbreaking eggs.