Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Right of return (Palestinian)

  1. Jan 18, 2009 #1

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    "right of return" (Palestinian)

    Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …

    since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …

    virtually the whole international community is opposed to this, and it is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas …

    Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel.

    There is no way of achieving peace between two neighbours when one wants to destroy the other (the other only wanting to live side-by-side in peace in the internationally supported "two-state solution"). :frown:

    Egypt, like Jordan, has made peace with Israel. :approve:

    Egypt hates Hamas.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 18, 2009 #2
    Re: who won israel vs gaza ??

    As someone who has lived through Northern Island, being from the UK. I know that directly achieving terrorists achieves nothing, for every terrorist killed 3 will now replace him. You can't fight fire with fire. Sunday bloody Sunday as it is called increased IRA recruitment threefold, this will do the same. It was only when funding dried up the IRA went for a political solution. We can't do that here the US is not the major funder, Iran and other countries are, so the only solution I can see is to talk with the group that does want a diplomatic peace, and ignore and thus marginalise Hamas. If Fatah gets a state and they don't they may be more willing to talk as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009
  4. Jan 18, 2009 #3
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    What barometer are you using to gauge the position of the international community? Stacks of UN resolutions show exactly the opposite of your claim, such as this one:

    http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f4...78737260dee9ec69852573ae00549b9c!OpenDocument

    The internaltional community has even offered to help Israel with the demographic issue by funding reasonable compensation for the refugees who's right of return Israel refuses to accept. It is Israel who denies the internationally supported two-state solution, and US backing that allows them the cover to do so, with Israel simply making "offers" for Palestinians to agree to a permanent state of subjugation under Israel.

    And yeah, Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan, because unlike Palestinians, they aren't being held under Israeli military occupation to keep them defenceless as Israeli civilians colonize their homeland out from under them. How have you shifted the onus onto Palestinians here, when Israel's colonization of the West Bank is actively wiping Palestine off the map?

    Israel's acknowledgement of Palestine's right to exist in what little territory they still hold rightful claim is the only reasonable means I see to stop the rockets. Granted, you seem intent to simply mock that option as you cast it aside in your callous disregard for Palestinians. What solution do you propose?
     
  5. Jan 18, 2009 #4
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    If refugees were expelled by Israel

    then, I am sympathetic to the Hamas cause and their struggle (putting it in simple words, then I am not against Hamas)
     
  6. Jan 18, 2009 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    So what is your plan for dealing with rocket attacks during the time you plan on punishing Israel? Are you going to send UN troops to stop the rockets? Or were you planning on telling Israel that they have to sit on their hands and take no action while being fired upon by the enemy, and punish them any time they do take action?

    Let's suppose that you really do have a good bead on things, and Israel really is trying to make a land grab. Let's suppose they do relent and acknowledge Palestine's right to exist (whatever that means). What do you plan to do if the rockets don't stop? Are you going to send in UN troops to stop them? What if Israel goes back into Gaza to defend themselves -- are you going to to let them, or are you going to accuse them of not being sincere and continue punishing them?

    Now, what if you are actually wrong about things? What if Israel really is defending itself like it claims, and what if Hamas really is out to eradicate Israel like it claims? Do you think that could even be possible?

    I don't have an solution; this is a difficult scenario, and there aren't any easy solutions... no matter what the naïve idealists like to think.

    Naïve idealism is actually harmful here, because of several problems:

    (1) If the truth conflicts with the ideals, it's very easy to the idealist to form opinions wildly divergent from reality

    (2) Idealists all too often evaluate actions based on how they align with ideals, rather upon their actual merit

    (3) It is dangerously easy to overlook consequences of actions that are at odds with the idealism
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009
  7. Jan 18, 2009 #6

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    The document you link to (General Asssembly #10670 of 10 December 2007) is not a resolution … it is a summary of a debate on four resolutions, none of the texts of which are quoted.

    There is nothing in this document which supports what you have said, or which contradicts me.

    (have you actually read it? :confused:)

    What barometer am I using to gauge the position of the international community when I say virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages?

    This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side). :smile:
     
  8. Jan 18, 2009 #7
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    I never suggested punishing Israel for taking action against any attacks. I don't have any issue with Israel defending itself, though it would be nice if a "coalition of the willing" could help defend both sides from eachother though the disengagement process.
    I'd much rather address the facts I've presented to demonstrate what you endeavor to write off as postulation. However, considering your compulsion to do otherwise, and your apparent denial of any understanding of Palestine's right to exist, I suppose you already know you have no reasonable grounds for such arguments.


    From the Arab Peace Plan:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

    And fromUN General Assembly Resolution 194:

    http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/36...c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument

    And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest the document I linked previously was actually a UN resolution, but rather that it recounts the votes on a recent one in which the vast majority of the nations of the world affirmed those rights as outlined above, as the have been doing consistently over many decades now.

    So, yeah, while Hamas rightly has the world against them for their terrorism, they still have the agreement of the international community in regard to their stance on the refugee issue.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009
  9. Jan 19, 2009 #8

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    are you trying to spell "help" so that it can be seen from the air? :rofl:

    That was over 60 years ago … it never had any legal force, and nobody takes it seriously any more, not even the Arab League … you are missing the significance of the Arab League's phrase "to be agreed upon", as explained at the time by a Jordanian spokesman:

    The Jordanian Embassy (USA) website quotes the following statement from the Jordanian Foreign Minister on the Arab Peace Initiatve in 2003 (6th paragraph, my emphasis in bold, but the CAPITALS are original :wink:) …
    (this webpage is a full text of the original Initiative, preceded by many comments on it by the Minister. Here's a more detailed extract:)
    So the Arab League see nothing wrong with Israel being demographically Jewish, and accepts that that characteristic is not even to be threatened.

    And the Arab League "commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem". :approve:

    This is totally contrary to UNGA Resolution 194 (of 1948).

    If the Palestinians continue to insist on UNGA Resolution 194, they are not going to get Arab League support.

    And my original statement … "This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side)" … is correct! :smile:

    You still haven't produce a link to support what you say … there is nothing to suggest that any recent UNGA resolution requires the return of refugees (on either side). :frown:

    Nooo … the world (including the Arab League, though not of course Iran :rolleyes:) is against Hamas on both counts!

    (and that is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas)
     
  10. Jan 19, 2009 #9
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    This is true but camp David failed because Arafat came expecting Israel to make good on its promise on a right of return it had signed up to in return for joining the UN, Sharon would not even moot it, talks broke down, shame really as they got everything 1967 borders, Golan heights etc all returned, but Israel wouldn't discuss a right to return and Arafat wouldn't discuss a treaty without at least some provision.

    Undoubtedly though Israel has been resolved on both in the GC and SC on the right to return, obviously SC was vetoed by the US. But the world is pro right of return that you can be sure of, and if Israel kept its word it would be too, however they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame, so after everyone's dead then. :wink:
     
  11. Jan 19, 2009 #10

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    Yes (except that Israel never made any such promise, neither in 1948 nor at any other time) … Arafat's position on return of refugees was the same as Hamas's is now … but Fatah does not follow that position.
    erm … that's wishful thinking … see my last post … even the Arab League isn't.

    (the Arab League only seeks "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem" that does not threaten "the demographic character of the Jewish state")
    What treaty (with link, please :wink:) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return? :confused:
     
  12. Jan 19, 2009 #11
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    This was a result of meetings to discuss inclusion into the UN as well. It was a sort of geture of good faith.

    And

    Israel lies a lot to be honest though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

    He seems to have failed to note that the forces were almost entirely Syrian/Egyptian and or others, very few Palestinians actually took part in the war.

    http://www.plands.org/articles/12.doc

    This link is quite interesting it makes no bones about what Zionists were trying to do, some wanting to settle and grab as much land as possible, and to exclude Palestinians from doing so. Some even more militant.

     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2009
  13. Jan 19, 2009 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: "right of return" (Palestinian)

    I have moved these posts discussing ""right of return" (Palestinian)" to a new thread. Do not attempt to hijack this thread with personal opinions about the current military actions.
     
  14. Jan 19, 2009 #13

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    oooh, nice job, Evo! :approve:
    (this quote, with your next one, was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#Historic_attempts_at_resolution)

    I agree that in April 1949, prior to inclusion in the UN, Israel accepted the idea of the return of 200,000 Gazan refugees to Gaza

    I do not understand why Egypt (occupiers of Gaza 1948-1967) did not allow these 200,000 Gazan refugees to return between 1948 and 1967. :confused: :frown:

    However, that is the only Israeli promise prior to inclusion in the UN.

    I assume you are misinformed about the dates … Israel's offer (not promise) was almost four months after inclusion … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years
    and, again from your quote …
    Whatever does this have to do with either my statement "virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages", or your statement "they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame", to which I asked "What treaty (with link, please ) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return?"

    You said that Israel signed a treaty including a right of return …
    you now aren't even trying to maintain that there was a treaty …

    and all you can refer to is a pre-UN-inclusion offer relating only to return to Gaza.

    Will you please admit that you were wrong, and that Israel made no promise at any time and in any way relating to (pre-1967) Israeli territory?​
     
  15. Jan 19, 2009 #14
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    What makes you think that the current situation isn't a solution? I think that this conflict isn't about Israel and arabs in Gaza and West Bank. It's about Israel and the rest of the world. We know what Israel wants but what we don't know is what the rest of the world wants. Until that decision is made, I can't, unfortunately, see an end to this conflict.
     
  16. Jan 19, 2009 #15
  17. Jan 19, 2009 #16
    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    Thank you Evo. :)

    The Arab League's peacee plan refers sepcificly to that 60 year old UN resolution, as to the ongoing UN resolutions the world vote for every year, such as this recent one, adopted by a vote of 173-1-6:
    http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49634ced2.html

    Furthermore, while you are right that resolution 194 never had any legal force, that is only because US veto power has been abused to block any further Security Council resolutions which could otherwise implement the conditions necessary to enforce it.
    I am well aware of the phrase, I am simply not depriving it of it's context:
    And again, UN General Assembly Resolution 194:
    http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/36...c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument

    The Jordanian spokesman you quoted, along with the world at large, is well aware of Israeli's insistence of denying Palestinian "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do". Hence, the world suggests Israel acknowledge "compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property", and arrange an acceptable offer, so that a resolution can be "agreed upon" by both parties.
    As long as Israel insists on maintaining "the demographic character of the Jewish state", then the onus is on Israel to provide an alternative which can be "agreed upon" by Palestinians. Granted, Israel has shown no interest in ever doing so much, but rather insists on continuing to deprive Palestinians of civil rights, while colonizing their homeland, and killing anyone who resists along side anyone who gets in the way.

    Vast military superiority, along with US diplomatic and economic backing, make Israel's conquest of Palestine possible. However, such attempts to beat Palestinians into submission is only strengthening their resolve against Israel. Hence, at least as long as Israel insists on maintaining it's conquest over what little of Palestine is left, of course Hamas will demand the entirety of Palestinian rights under international law, including the right of return.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2009
  18. Jan 19, 2009 #17
    Re: "right of return" (Palestinian)

    If you look at that history, right in your first link, you'll see Jews fought along side Arabs to defend that land from Crusaders, and now you want to reach back to the Romans and further to vindicate Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of the Arabs they recently displaced?

    I know it is possible to see what is right here, but you apparently lack any interest in doing so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2009
  19. Jan 20, 2009 #18

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Re: Ultimately … "the return of refugees to their villages"

    What distinguishes "use" from "abuse" of a veto? Hopefully more than just whether you agree or disagree with the subject being voted on.
     
  20. Jan 20, 2009 #19
    Re: "right of return" (Palestinian)

    No I wont.

    UN resolution 194/11. And subsequently it promised to expediate the right as a selling point for inclusion in the UN. Israel has lied numerous times about it's intentions, so I wouldn't expect it to keep it's promises anyway.

     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009
  21. Jan 20, 2009 #20

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    At last I've mananged to find a copy of the Protocol of 12 May 1949 of the Lausanne Conference, which is Annex B of the Third Progress Report of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine

    (There were in fact two protocols, with identical wording, one signed by the Conciliation Commission and Egypt Jordan Lebanon and Syria, and the other signed by the Conciliation Commission and Israel :rolleyes:)

    (identical except that where one says "has proposed to the delegations of the Arab States and to the delegation of Israel" the other says "has proposed to the delegation of Israel and to the delegations of the Arab States")

    This is the English translation … the original was in French (here) :wink:
    Contrary to many websites and to the impression of a previous post here, this Protocol was signed after Israel's inclusion into the UN (at 10.30am the following morning, to be precise) … Israel did not achieve votes by signing it. :frown:

    The only commitments by Israel (or the Arab countries) were:

    i]"the working document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the Commission"
    (French original: "de prendre comme base de discussions avec la Commission le document de travail ci-joint")
    and
    ii]"the exchanges of views which will be carried on by the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial adjustments ("porteront sur les aménagaments
    tarritoriaux
    " (sic!)) necessary to the above-indicated objective"

    Neither of these include any reference to UNGA Resolution 194, or to the return of refugees, unless such is in the "working document" ("document de travail") referred to in i].

    Unfortunately, it is not clear what that "working document" ("document de travail") is.

    It certainly isn't the text above the Protocol on the same page … most of that deals with discussions after 12 May 1949.

    A clue is given by Paragraph 10 of that text, which starts by indicating that the purpose of the Protocol was to extend the original scope of the Lausanne meetings (and no, I haven't found out what that was :redface:) to include the refugee question, but concludes only by mentioning a map:
    So it seems the "working document" may simply be the map, described as the "document attached" (French: "document joint") in Annex C:
    Can anyone throw any further light on what the "working document" ("document de travail") is … without it, there is no Lausanne promise of any sort relating to Resolution 149 or return, other than an agreement to discuss?

    Hi kyleb ! :smile:

    Finding these sources on the Lausanne Conference (which I know you didn't mention) has taken me ages, and I don't have time right now to actually comment on them, or to reply to your post! :redface:

    I'll post further, later today.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Right of return (Palestinian)
Loading...