Palestinians: Eight Million Refugees Must Return to Israel

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) really some inherent and personal right?


(COMMENT)

Or, is it a phrase found in Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) from 1948?

Everything is negotiable, especially when the Palestinian smells something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) ;

So, when is the UN going to pull its thumb out of it ass?
Around the same time muslims stop beating their wives.:cool:

And domestic violence is so prevalent in the US that we have a special body of law to deal with it.

Pot-kettle
 
RoccoR said:
If the Arab League attacked into Israel, then they are, by definition, the "aggressor." And if the hostile aggressor losses, then they are the "Governments or authorities responsible."

The Zionists went to Palestine (unprovoked) with the stated goal of taking over the country. With the help of the British, a world superpower at the time, they proceeded to do just that.

Please explain how that is a defensive position.

I await your response.

The " Zionists" went to " Palestine" ( not a country with the STATED goal of taking over " Palestine? " Translation; They have no right to be there even though its their Homeland . For that reason alone there will never be a " Palestinian state " They rejected it in 1917, 1948 , and before 1967 :cuckoo:

What right did the Zionists have to take another country?

Quote the international law.
 
The Zionists went to Palestine (unprovoked) with the stated goal of taking over the country. With the help of the British, a world superpower at the time, they proceeded to do just that.

Please explain how that is a defensive position.

I await your response.

The " Zionists" went to " Palestine" ( not a country with the STATED goal of taking over " Palestine? " Translation; They have no right to be there even though its their Homeland . For that reason alone there will never be a " Palestinian state " They rejected it in 1917, 1948 , and before 1967 :cuckoo:

What right did the Zionists have to take another country?

Quote the international law.

It makes one less country where arabs can blow each other up in. So that's internationally accepted.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the Jewish People immigrated to the territory under British Mandate of Palestine (the Government); "willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home;"
and the "development of self-governing institutions."

RoccoR said:
If the Arab League attacked into Israel, then they are, by definition, the "aggressor." And if the hostile aggressor losses, then they are the "Governments or authorities responsible."

The Zionists went to Palestine (unprovoked) with the stated goal of taking over the country. With the help of the British, a world superpower at the time, they proceeded to do just that.

Please explain how that is a defensive position.

I await your response.
(COMMENT)

Yes, the went "unprovoked" --- but "invited" by the Allied Powers. This was done by the Mandatory for the expressed purpose of "putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917;" the Balfour Declaration; with the authority of the Principal Allied Powers.

Whatever else may be said, the powers over the territory concluded this was the action to take. And the Powers over the land were not the indigenous population; what we call today, the Arab-Palestinian.

In 1948, following the explicit instruction of the United Nation, having coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (the designated successor Government), and having completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence on the "basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947;"
[GA Resolution 181(II)] recognized by the UN (the creators), the Arab League (Summit Conferences), the Palestinians (Declaration of Independence), and the Israelis (Declaration of Independence), openly declared independence. The Arab-Palestinian was not defending their sovereign territory because it was not their territory to begin with. It was surrendered territory to the Allied Powers from the former sovereign power (The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Government).

The Arab League attacked to defy the UN on the matter of establishing a Jewish National Home, and after several botched attempts: (As the Sole Representative of the Palestinian People describe it:)

PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) said:
Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic PalestineÂ’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

SOURCE: PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)

It was not a defensive war on the part of the Arabs. It was an attempt to use a set of external military forces to acquire territorial control to establish another Arab Kingdom under the guise of "self defense." An act of Aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't understand.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) really some inherent and personal right?

This is the key point.

The right of return is not a negotiable issue because no third party has the authority to negotiate away the rights of others.

Why is this simple concept so difficult to grasp?
(COMMENT)

Or, is it a phrase found in Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) from 1948?

Everything is negotiable, especially when the Palestinian smells something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) ;

So, when is the UN going to pull its thumb out of it ass?
(COMMENT)

It doesn't say "Israel shall pay!" It says "should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." In 1948, the external aggressor was the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP). They are "the Governments or authorities responsible."

Most Respectfully,
R
 
There is no such thing as 'Right of Return' at this late stage. It evaporated decades ago.
There's no statute of limitations on the right to return.

You're full of shit!

Granting Right-of-Return = the death of the State of Israel. After waiting for 2000 years to reclaim their ancestral or spiritual homeland... not a chance.
So it's okay for the jews to return after being driven out 2000 years ago, but it's not okay for the Pals to return after being driven out 70 years ago?

Given that nothing short of the destruction of the State of Israel will satisfy the residents of Rump Palestine... There is nothing left to do but to expel them into Lebanon and Jordan and Egypt.
Now look who's trying to wipe out who?

No other solution can ensure the long-term survival of Israel. It's just a matter of 'when' the expulsions will begin.
There's another solution. How 'bout Israel obeying the law?

At present, there is a nearly-ideal window of opportunity to do just that.
What a drama queen.

If I were a Palestinian, I'd be crapping in my pants right about now, waiting for the other shoe to fall.
You probably are crapping in your pants right now?
 
"...What right did the Zionists have to take another country?..."
What country?

The Jews carved-off a big piece of an Unincorporated/Unchartered/Unorganized region, and Incorporated/Chartered/Organized themselves into a Sovereign Nation called Israel.

Too bad the Arabs didn't have the brains to do the same thing, at the same time.

You snooze, you lose.

Welcome to your consequences.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't understand.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) really some inherent and personal right?


(COMMENT)

Or, is it a phrase found in Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) from 1948?

Everything is negotiable, especially when the Palestinian smells something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) ;

So, when is the UN going to pull its thumb out of it ass?
(COMMENT)

It doesn't say "Israel shall pay!" It says "should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." In 1948, the external aggressor was the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP). They are "the Governments or authorities responsible."

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep saying things that are not true. There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the Arab countries went into Palestine.

Why are you blaming them for what Israel was doing?
 
"...What right did the Zionists have to take another country?..."
What country?

The Jews carved-off a big piece of an Unincorporated/Unchartered/Unorganized region, and Incorporated/Chartered/Organized themselves into a Sovereign Nation called Israel.

Too bad the Arabs didn't have the brains to do the same thing, at the same time.

You snooze, you lose.

Welcome to your consequences.

The Mandate called Palestine a country about ten different times.

That country.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Zionists have to take another country;" I think NOT. They exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with UN instructions and recommendations.

The Zionists went to Palestine (unprovoked) with the stated goal of taking over the country. With the help of the British, a world superpower at the time, they proceeded to do just that.

Please explain how that is a defensive position.

I await your response.

The " Zionists" went to " Palestine" ( not a country with the STATED goal of taking over " Palestine? " Translation; They have no right to be there even though its their Homeland . For that reason alone there will never be a " Palestinian state " They rejected it in 1917, 1948 , and before 1967 :cuckoo:

What right did the Zionists have to take another country?

Quote the international law.
(COMMENT)

They did this in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II), just the same as the Arab-Palestinian did in November 1988.

Palestinian Declaration of Independence said:
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

SOURCE: A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Zionists have to take another country;" I think NOT. They exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with UN instructions and recommendations.

The " Zionists" went to " Palestine" ( not a country with the STATED goal of taking over " Palestine? " Translation; They have no right to be there even though its their Homeland . For that reason alone there will never be a " Palestinian state " They rejected it in 1917, 1948 , and before 1967 :cuckoo:

What right did the Zionists have to take another country?

Quote the international law.
(COMMENT)

They did this in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II), just the same as the Arab-Palestinian did in November 1988.

Palestinian Declaration of Independence said:
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

SOURCE: A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988

Most Respectfully,
R

The "Zionists have to take another country;" I think NOT. They exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with UN instructions and recommendations.

How much is Israel paying you to peddle this crap?
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, and who was the government for that country?

"...What right did the Zionists have to take another country?..."
What country?

The Jews carved-off a big piece of an Unincorporated/Unchartered/Unorganized region, and Incorporated/Chartered/Organized themselves into a Sovereign Nation called Israel.

Too bad the Arabs didn't have the brains to do the same thing, at the same time.

You snooze, you lose.

Welcome to your consequences.

The Mandate called Palestine a country about ten different times.

That country.
(COMMENT)

It was not an Arab Country, it was the Mandate of Palestine.

The Palestine Order in Council PART I. - PRELIMINARY said:
Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

Definitions.2. In this Order the word:--

"Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.​

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

If you consider it a country in the literal sense, then the government of that country was the British "High Commissioner;" and not the Arab Palestinian. That is, until 15 May 1948 when the "Successor Government" was appointed.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
The Zionists went to Palestine (unprovoked) with the stated goal of taking over the country. With the help of the British, a world superpower at the time, they proceeded to do just that.

Please explain how that is a defensive position.

I await your response.

Defending land against being taken over by sharia scumbags.

:thanks:

So it is stolen by Zionist scumbags.:eusa_eh:




No it was bought by Zionists over the years in hope of resurrecting Israel once more. The arab muslims decided that they would take over the world so attacked the Jews with the sole intention of taking the land. Time the world stood up to arab colonialism and put them in their place.
 
15th post
There is no such thing as 'Right of Return' at this late stage. It evaporated decades ago.
There's no statute of limitations on the right to return.
No, but there was a limit to the amount of time during which the Jews of Israel would have been even marginally willing to consider even a partial 'Return'. That time limit was exceeded at the close of the 1967 Six Day War.

Any snowball's chance in hell that the Palis had, to attain even a partial 'Return', evaporated at that point, and it's the guys with the Big Guns who say what is to be, and what is not.

If you don't like the decision, you must pick up a rifle and take it up with them.

It's the difference between Paper Law and Operative Law; the difference between some arguable 'ideal' or 'standard', and what the Real World is willing to settle for, in light of an entirely understandable Israel intransigence.

"...You're full of shit!..."
Quite possibly, but I take some small measure of comfort in the notion that you are comprised of the same stuff; not merely full of it, but made of it.

Granting Right-of-Return = the death of the State of Israel. After waiting for 2000 years to reclaim their ancestral or spiritual homeland... not a chance.
So it's okay for the jews to return after being driven out 2000 years ago, but it's not okay for the Pals to return after being driven out 70 years ago?
By Jove, I think you've got it. Don't like it? Pick up a rifle and take that up with the IDF.

"...Now look who's trying to wipe out who?..."
Pay close attention, Junior...

Option A - this is Expulsion...

Palestinian_refugees.jpg


Option B - this is Wiping Out...

the-kurdish-genocide.jpg


See the difference? ...my little butt floss.

If the Israelis decide to flush-out the West Bank or Gaza, they'll choose Option A - Expulsion...

Which is one helluva lot more humane and merciful than what the Palestinians themselves - and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - have repeatedly sworn to do to the Jews, in drowning them in the Mediterranean...

"...There's another solution. How 'bout Israel obeying the law?..."
The very moment that 'the law' does not require them to surrender all or much of what they already have, or to commit slow national suicide. 'The law' is usually used to the great detriment and harm of the Jews and they've had enough of your (and my) shit; trusting to themselves to complete the process of reclaiming the Holy Land and to set up a defensible and sustainable nation-state, as they're doing now. Don't like it? Pick up a rifle, and take it up with the IDF.

At present, there is a nearly-ideal window of opportunity to do just that.
What a drama queen.
My reference to a 'nearly-ideal window of opportunity' pertains to the relative weakness and distraction of all of Israel's Muslim-Arab neighbors; most of whom will not be in a position to threaten Israel again for many years to come; the first time that that state of affairs has presented itself since the founding of Israel in 1948.

That is not 'dramatization' - that is an accurate assessment of the relative strengths and willingness and ability (or lack of it) to interfere in external matters, on the part of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Lebanon; serving-up opinion that there is a unique opportunity here to exploit that weakness.

As to the 'queen' part, well...

Anybody who would, as Israeli Prime Minister in 1967, wait until Egyptian bombers crossed into my airspace - seconds or minutes from my cities and military bases - willing to take hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties and to lose precious and irreplaceable war-assets - just to conform to the letter of international law and to make such a point...

Anyone who would do that - well... that's a bit too limp-wristed for MY vote, but that's just me.

If I were a Palestinian, I'd be crapping in my pants right about now, waiting for the other shoe to fall.
You probably are crapping in your pants right now?
Don't try to be clever Queenie... you haven't got it in ya.
 
Last edited:
P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, and who was the government for that country?

What country?

The Jews carved-off a big piece of an Unincorporated/Unchartered/Unorganized region, and Incorporated/Chartered/Organized themselves into a Sovereign Nation called Israel.

Too bad the Arabs didn't have the brains to do the same thing, at the same time.

You snooze, you lose.

Welcome to your consequences.

The Mandate called Palestine a country about ten different times.

That country.
(COMMENT)

It was not an Arab Country, it was the Mandate of Palestine.

The Palestine Order in Council PART I. - PRELIMINARY said:
Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

Definitions.2. In this Order the word:--

"Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.​

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

If you consider it a country in the literal sense, then the government of that country was the British "High Commissioner;" and not the Arab Palestinian. That is, until 15 May 1948 when the "Successor Government" was appointed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain, as the appointed mandate, was to guide the Palestinians to independence. Britain violated its mandate. That does not negate the Palestinian's right to independence.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the "Right-of-Return" (RoR) really some inherent and personal right?

This is the key point.

The right of return is not a negotiable issue because no third party has the authority to negotiate away the rights of others.

Why is this simple concept so difficult to grasp?
(COMMENT)

Or, is it a phrase found in Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) from 1948?

Everything is negotiable, especially when the Palestinian smells something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Paragraph 11, GA Resolution 194 (III) ;

So, when is the UN going to pull its thumb out of it ass?




Indeed when is it going to tell the Palestinians that belligerence will be met with force and many more will die before the fact sinks in. Forces them to abide by the treaties they have signed by closing down all access to the outside world and charging their leaders with wilful genocide and war crimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom