Refugees and the right to return

[montelatici]

How is understanding that European Jews are Europeans that happen to practice Judaism "hating Jews". It's just a fact.

First of all it's not true, the way You use those isolated studies in order to deny Jews their rights is a good example of 'hating Jews'. You ignore all evidence in those same studies, that connect Jews directly to the land, while using a totally racist narrative.


Jews are connected to the land genetically, culturally and by longstanding presence.

Be honest, own Yourself and deal with it.

Jewish immigrants from Moldova have no right to be living on occupied Palestinian land while those who are born there have been denied their right to live in the land of their birth.

Palestinian immigrants from Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Geece, Bosnia etc. HAVE A RIGHT to be living in the region of Palestine, which their ancestors colonized.
However they have no right to deny Jews their rights, their claim to self determination cannot be conditioned on the elimination of the National Home for Jews.

The ancestors of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians are predominately the descendants of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Europeans that colonized Palestine and evicted many of the descendants the indigenous are now there, the crime has been committed. There needs to be a peaceful solution that removes Israeli oppression of and discrimination against the native people. The colonial project couched as a national home for Europeans of the Jewish faith was a ridiculous plan that was bound to fail. There was no way the civil rights of the native people would be protected as the Balfour Declaration required. It was a British colonial scheme and all British colonial schemes harmed the native people.

There needs to be a peaceful solution that removes Israeli oppression of and discrimination against the native people.

I agree, move them all to Syria. No pesky Jews there to oppress all those groovy peace loving Muslims.

Why should they leave their ancestral homeland?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, the indigenous people of Palestine were the Canaanites. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the Canaanites and the later settler colonist invaders. The Arabians were invader/rulers, as were the Greeks and Romans. The Bedouins were and are descendants of the indigenous Edomite tribes. The Zionists are European settler colonists.

You cannot possibly believe that the Palestinians today are descendants of the Canaanites from 5,000 years ago. Perhaps 1%, if that. Out of the 350 million Americans today, less than 5 million are Natives, and America is only 500 years old. What you are saying is Palestinian propoganda.

The Palestinians are the legal citizens of Palestine without distinction. Slicing and dicing people into different categories can only be for discrimination.

 

[Roudy]

No, the indigenous people of Palestine were the Canaanites. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the Canaanites and the later settler colonist invaders. The Arabians were invader/rulers, as were the Greeks and Romans. The Bedouins were and are descendants of the indigenous Edomite tribes. The Zionists are European settler colonists.

You cannot possibly believe that the Palestinians today are descendants of the Canaanites from 5,000 years ago. Perhaps 1%, if that. Out of the 350 million Americans today, less than 5 million are Natives, and America is only 500 years old. What you are saying is Palestinian propoganda.

The Palestinians are the legal citizens of Palestine without distinction. Slicing and dicing people into different categories can only be for discrimination.

They are legal citizens of a country that never existed and never will? Ha ha ha!

 

[Coyote]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

 

[Coyote]

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

 

[Eloy]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

 

[Coyote]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

 

[Eloy]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

 

[montelatici]

As stated previously, Palestinian refugees are administered by UNWRA pursuant to UN Resolution 302, which reaffirmed para. 11 of UN Resolution 194. UNWRA has specific refugee status rules established for Palestinian refugees alone. The definition of "right of return" for Palestinian refugees is stipulated by UN Resolutions that address the Palestinian refugee issue as administered by UNWRA.

 

[Coyote]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".

[Here is an article which is asking to become a thread. Who will start one? ]
All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

That would be me.

Susan Akram
B.A., with honors, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Diplome in International Human Rights, Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)

Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

The solution to the problem of the refugees originating from the Israeli/Arab conflict is easy enough in concept. It can be accomplished, in part, by including them in the other conventions and legal instruments which were created and still exist for refugees today.

A solution:

1. must be a durable solution and release all peoples from their refugee status.
2. must not be imposed upon individual refugees -- they must have options and choice.
3. must not threaten the existence of either the Jewish State nor the potential Arab State.
4. must be equally applied to both Arab and Jewish refugees (and their descendants).
5. should focus on practical and not philosophical ideals.


I suggest:

1. All "refugees" who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status.
2. All refugees of the original conflict who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) to be settled in the territory from which they were expelled d) to be settled in another host country (with host country's approval).
3. All descendants of refugees who have not been resettled be given the option to a) be settled in the territory of their birth b) be settled in the territory of their current residence c) be settled in the appropriate Jewish or Arab State in the territory of the conflict d) to be settled in another host country as above.
4. All refugees of the original conflict (or their immediate families) should receive compensation for losses.
5. All governments must be required to provide fair and equal citizenship to all refugees re-settled in this manner.

This is pretty much what is done in all other cases, and should have been done, long ago, in this one.

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

 

[montelatici]

Thread has been partially cleaned, and infractions/thread bans handed out. Time to get ON TOPIC - which is "right of return".


Followed by the FIRST post to actually address the OP:

Lets see IF we can get this thread on track without further derailing into predictable directions.

For those who are confused - What is Right of Return

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.​

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

 

[Coyote]

This is a good definition and one which demolishes #1 of the previous suggestions by Shusha, namely, "All 'refugees' who have been adequately re-settled should no longer be considered refugees, and as such have no special status."

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

 

[Eloy]

It's a definition of what "right of return" means - not necessarily how it should be carried out. In fact, the points Shusha brings up address the issues within that definition and the overly broad nature of it.

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree because the definition says refugees should be enabled to re-enter their country of origin whereas Shusha refers to refugees with quotation marks which is a code for them not being refugees and if they have been settled outside of the land of their birth they are not refugees. This is simply a wish to have the descendants of Palestinians who are living in the Occupied Territories and countries outside of the former British Mandate declared as not refugees. It is a violation of the concept of a refugee as you posted.

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

...and some of the refugees don't wish to "live at peace with their neighbours"...

Should decendents be allowed a "right of return"?

And again - How far back do you go...?

 

[Shusha]

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

Repatriating refugees and their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren is a problem for a number of reasons. The most important of which is that the conflict is still on-going -- thus it is impossible to enact the "live at peace" part of the agreement.

 

[Eloy]

At what point do "refugees" stop being refugees and become settled citizens of another land? The other thing is - SHOULD it include descendents?

and...How far back do you go...? Human history has seen many wars and displacements. Do they all have a right to return because their ancestors were displaced "refugees"?

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

...and some of the refugees don't wish to "live at peace with their neighbours"...

Should decendents be allowed a "right of return"?

And again - How far back do you go...?

People have a right to defend themselves against massacres, assassination, and assault by occupation troops and "border" police.

As long as the descendants refugees want to return then they have that right. For example, only two years ago Spain passed a law which grants the right of return to the descendants of Jews expelled half a millennium ago:
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews

King Felipe and Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Moshe Amar in 2015

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

...and some of the refugees don't wish to "live at peace with their neighbours"...

Should decendents be allowed a "right of return"?

And again - How far back do you go...?

People have a right to defend themselves against massacres, assassination, and assault by occupation troops and "border" police.

As long as the descendants refugees want to return then they have that right. For example, only two years ago Spain passed a law which grants the right of return to the descendants of Jews expelled half a millennium ago:
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews

King Felipe and Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Moshe Amar in 2015

That was probably only a symbolic gesture. Similarly, Israel should take in about 100 Arabs as a symbolic gesture. Actually she did already--100 Syrian orphans. So case closed.

 

[Eloy]

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

...and some of the refugees don't wish to "live at peace with their neighbours"...

Should decendents be allowed a "right of return"?

And again - How far back do you go...?

People have a right to defend themselves against massacres, assassination, and assault by occupation troops and "border" police.

As long as the descendants refugees want to return then they have that right. For example, only two years ago Spain passed a law which grants the right of return to the descendants of Jews expelled half a millennium ago:
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews

King Felipe and Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Moshe Amar in 2015

That was probably only a symbolic gesture. Similarly, Israel should take in about 100 Arabs as a symbolic gesture. Actually she did already--100 Syrian orphans. So case closed.

No. Read the accounts. It is the law. Any and all descendants of those expelled from Spain have a right to return, dating back 500+ years.

 

[Coyote]

Very good point. My parents were refugees from Poland after WW2. My dad lived in a Displaced Persons' Camp in Germany after the war, and my half-brother was even born there. My mom and her family lived in tents in Israel. But that was 70 years ago!! My parents settled into new lives about 65 years ago, and my sisters and I (all born here in America) don't even consider ourselves to be descendants of refugees. When will the Palestinians become settled already? How long must this go on?

When they are repatriated to what is now Israel, as per the UN Resolution 194:

"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....."

This part has always been a wee bit problematic...

Repatriating refugees and their children is only a "problem" because the Israelis refuse to honor UN Resolution 194.

...and some of the refugees don't wish to "live at peace with their neighbours"...

Should decendents be allowed a "right of return"?

And again - How far back do you go...?

People have a right to defend themselves against massacres, assassination, and assault by occupation troops and "border" police.

As long as the descendants refugees want to return then they have that right. For example, only two years ago Spain passed a law which grants the right of return to the descendants of Jews expelled half a millennium ago:
Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews

King Felipe and Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Moshe Amar in 2015

I suspect it was a symbolic gesture made by Spain. Did they make the same offer to the Spanish Muslims who were expelled?

How far back should we go in allowing descendents of an expelled people a "right of return"?

If you take a right of return as an indefinate right (and I don't) - then every Jew has a right to return to Palestine as well as every Palestinian refugee.