Right of return (Palestinian)

  • News
  • Thread starter tiny-tim
  • Start date
  • #26
drizzle
Gold Member
366
57


It’s not just “we were here first”! They were there for decades!! and if you will give the right to Israel to occupy that land (the Palestinian land) just because they could, or the more than thousands of years ROOTS, then this will trigger any ((group what ever their motive)) to occupy others land for their own reasons, i.e. the Arabs could’ve occupy Spain because they live there for almost 800 years and there is milestones speaks that history!? sure not, it seems ridiculous to be a foreign guy from your own land!!
 
  • #27
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


I should have said "equally logical" since both sides have goals and methods that are logical.

We have a mobile human race and it sometimes seems like half of human history is an endless cycle of "we were here first" (except when that excuse is to absurd to be believed, such European colonization of North America, Africa, South Asia, etc).
 
  • #28
drizzle
Gold Member
366
57


I should have said "equally logical" since both sides have goals and methods that are logical.

We have a mobile human race and it sometimes seems like half of human history is an endless cycle of "we were here first" (except when that excuse is to absurd to be believed, such European colonization of North America, Africa, South Asia, etc).
Besides this piece of land isn’t an isolated island, it’s an Arab land surrounded by other Arab lands, obviously the whole area lived by Arabs and it’s fully cultured with Arabs, even Arabs from different countries do see this as a piece of their land taken away from them and there is an ((intruder)) live in their land with out giving the right to Palestinians to come back to their places. the examples you gave Bob G isn’t the same as this case, if you are going to accept this as the same then pardon me your logic is different than mine!! I’m not against a certain (race) at all, but you should put in mind the whole image not just Israel vs. Palestine. history shows that Arabs do coexist with other people giving them their rights as citizens, this isn’t a polishing off talking but others need to know this.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
kyleb


What distinguishes "use" from "abuse" of a veto? Hopefully more than just whether you agree or disagree with the subject being voted on.
Denying people their rights as affirmed by the UN Security Counsel resolution 60 years ago, and constantly reaffirmed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly to the present, is a flagrant abuse of veto power. It is used to perpetuate and exasperate this conflict, with the few making the bombs and building settlements and everything else in this fill their pockets with our tax dollars, and with callous disregard for all the death and destruction to both sides that they leave in their wake. So yeah, I suppose it depends if you are on the side that keeps this conflict going to serve their own ends, or if you want bring a just resolution to this insanity so both Israel and Palestine can finally exist beside eachother in peace.


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?
I'm sorry, but are you simply citing Israel making an agreement to discuss the implementation of resolution 194 as an excuse to ignore the rights of millions of people, and the ongoing consensus of international community, for 60 years?

It is a fact that that Israel is a theocratic democracy. If Jews wind up a minority in Israel, they either have to give up being a Jewish state or give up being a democracy.

Hence, allowing Palestinians to return to homes in Israel does mean the destruction of Israel as it exists now.
Israel isn't theocratic at all, most Israeli Jews aren't even religious, and their government isn't by any means. Israel is an ethnic-nationalist democracy, with ethnic-nationalism coming before democracy in various ways.

A person could say that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in a land that was previously occupied by Palestinians (logical). Regardless, the goals of the two groups are completely incompatible. Both groups cannot simultaneously achieve their goals and I don't see any hope of compromise.
Israel has the right to exist by viture of the fact that it does exist, and if they want acknowledge the rights of the refuges while not endangering the ethnic-nationalist nature of their state, they have the option to arrange just compensation for the Palestinians they displaced and present that offer. However, with US diplomatic and economic power backing them they have no need to do anything of the sort, and prefer to continue colonising what little of Palestine is still left, holding it with vast military superiority which keeps the millions of refuges and others there defenceless to resist.

Again, all Palestinians are asking is for, refugees and otherwise, Hamas included, Israel to respect their rights under international law. Israel's attempts to bomb Palestinians into subjugation have only strengthened their resolve to achieve their rights, and lead to ever increasing hostility and terrorist attacks over the years, directed at Israel, the US, and elsewhere. The solution is simple, and outline in the Arab peace plan linked previously, the only difficulty is in persuading Israel to end it's conquest over what little of Palestine is left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
the Arab League is against Hamas on the right of return

I'm sorry, but are you simply citing Israel making an agreement to discuss the implementation of resolution 194 as an excuse to ignore the rights of millions of people, and the ongoing consensus of international community, for 60 years?
No, my doing that that would be wrong …

I was only replying to someone else who claimed two things completely untrue, that Israel at the Lausanne conference made a promise which it later broke, and that Israel made a promise in return for inclusion into the UN …

it is important to challenge such untruths (not made by you, of course), especially since the latter could be used by racists seeking to deligitimise Israel as a UN member.
Denying people their rights as affirmed by the UN Security Counsel resolution 60 years ago …
No, Resolution 194 (in 1948) was a UN General Assembly ("UNGA") Resolution.

This is not a mere technicality …

when we talk of "rights", we can mean either legal rights or moral rights … both types are of course perfectly legitimate, but UNGA Resolutions (such as 194) generally convey no legal right (only, arguably, moral rights), while UNSA Resolutions do convey legal rights.

One problem of the 60-year conflict is that many Palestinians and their sympathisers seem to believe that a legal "right of return" was conveyed by Resolution 194 (as opposed to by some other doctrine of international law) …

and of course a legal right is something people are naturally extremely unwilling to give up.
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.
No, Resolution 194, being a UNGA Resolution could never have had any legal force anyway … the US veto is irrelevant to Resolution 194.

Thank you Evo. :)

The Arab League's peacee plan refers sepcificly to that 60 year old UN resolution, …

you are missing the significance of the Arab League's phrase "to be agreed upon", as explained at the time by a Jordanian spokesman:
I am well aware of the phrase, I am simply not depriving it of it's context:
Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
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
The Jordanian spokesman you quoted, along with the world at large, is well aware of Israeli's insistence of denying …
Hi kyleb! :smile:

Yes, I agree he's aware of all that :smile:

but my point is that he (speaking on behalf of the Arab states about the Arab Peace Plan) nevertheless abandons the right of return …
Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem … the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened.

there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state.
which is why I said "nobody takes it seriously any more, not even the Arab League …"
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.
The onus is on all states in the area …

Israel accepted and fully integrated most of the Jewish 1948-1951 refugees :smile:, despite Israel's very small land area …

but the Arab states, with their much larger area, have consistently refused the same for the (only slightly higher number of) Palestinian refugees. :frown:

Lebanon in particular still treat their Palestinian refugees very badly.
Granted, Israel has shown no interest in ever doing so much,
I agree Israel has never show any interest in allowing a substantial number of Palestinian refugees to return …

but my point is that the Arab League (rightly or wrongly) accept this position (and Hamas don't).
… 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.
I'd rather not get into a discussion of killing etc on this thread … let's stick to the right of return
tiny-tim said:
(and that is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas)
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.
You say "at least as long as Israel insists on maintaining it's conquest over what little of Palestine is left" …

but Hamas will always demand the right of return …

it's in their charter, it's in all their statements.

The whole world (including the Arab League, though not of course Iran) is against Hamas on the right of return

Insistence on the right of return under Arafat and the PLO stalled the peace process for decades, and the continued insistence by Hamas (but not, I think, by Fatah), with apparent electoral support, is continuing to do so. :redface:
 
  • #31
205
0


What possible evidence is there of this?

And there's no "it might have been" signed after … it was signed after … it quite clearly says the 12th May 1949 (and the link to the French original is actually of a photographic copy :wink:), and it's well-known from other sources that Israel was voted into the UN on the 11th May 1949. Why are you so so reluctant to accept such an obvious truth?

If you wish to continue to maintain that it somehow affected the vote on Israel, despite the obvious causality problem (well, this is a physics forum :rolleyes:) of affecting something after the event, please produce some evidence to support your position.

Or have you just made it up?


Have you actually read any the Protocol that you're talking about?

If you don't trust my quotations of it, you can look at them yourself on the links I've given, both to the French original and to the official English translation.

There is clearly nothing in the Protocol which commits Israel (or the Arab states) to anything other than discussion regarding refugees.

There was no promise (in the Protocol) for them to either act on or break.

If you wish to continue to maintain that there was, please quote the passage you're relying on, or some other evidence.
Can we quit making straw men, I never made the claim of when it was signed only that Israel made promises it couldn't or had no intention of keeping, the rest of it is an avenue entirely fabricated by you, for what reason I can only guess?

As for the fact that you refuse to consider that anything they signed or said or promised is any sort of contract then I can only assume you're not a lawyer, or maybe you're a scheister? :tongue:

No, my doing that that would be wrong …

I was only replying to someone else who claimed two things completely untrue, that Israel at the Lausanne conference made a promise which it later broke, and that Israel made a promise in return for inclusion into the UN …

it is important to challenge such untruths (not made by you, of course), especially since the latter could be used by racists seeking to deligitimise Israel as a UN member.
And can we quit with the sophistry too, and the equivocation. Stop making my words into something they were not. It is history that Israel gave assertions about actioning the RoR in return for inclusion in the UN. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251


Can we quit making straw men, I never made the claim of when it was signed
Yes you did … in post #19, you quoted (without saying where you were quoting from) a long passage including the words
The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees.
The chronology shows clearly that that is not true … which you still seemed reluctant to accept. :frown:
only that Israel made promises it couldn't or had no intention of keeping, the rest of it is an avenue entirely fabricated by you, for what reason I can only guess?
As for the fact that you refuse to consider that anything they signed or said or promised is any sort of contract then I can only assume you're not a lawyer, or maybe you're a scheister? :tongue:
"scheister" … is that racists' language for "Jewish lawyer"? :mad:

Dagas, have some common-sense … I think you can safely assume that anyone in a physics forum is not a lawyer. :rofl: :rofl:

I entirely accept that anything signed or promised by Israel is a contract, or similar legal commitment.

But the Protocol does not contain any promise … if you still maintain it does, can you please point to the words of that promise? :frown:
It is history that Israel gave assertions about actioning the RoR in return for inclusion in the UN.
Well, it certainly isn't asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted elsewhere.

If you wish to continue your claim that Israel made an assertion or promise about right of return, and then broke it, then please give some evidence of it … all documentation is by now available somewhere on the internet.

If you can't or won't produce the actual assertion or promise, then stop claiming that there was one. :frown:
 
  • #33
drizzle
Gold Member
366
57


despite Israel's very small land area … but the Arab states, with their much larger area, have consistently refused the same for the (only slightly higher number of) Palestinian refugees. :frown:
Why don’t you say forget about having your own country, there will never be Palestine?
You know if you ask Palestinians themselves to leave to another Arab country to have a peaceful life they wouldn’t accept your offer no matter what! No man would do that and it isn’t about large areas or small ones this is not a mathematical calculation?!

It’s their land and they have to get back their own Palestine, this is ridiculous.
 
  • #34
Judy


The onus is on all states in the area …

Israel accepted and fully integrated most of the Jewish 1948-1951 refugees , despite Israel's very small land area …

but the Arab states, with their much larger area, have consistently refused the same for the (only slightly higher number of) Palestinian refugees.
why would the onus be on all states in the area?!!!!
what have other states to do with this ? why would they be involved ?
it does not make any sense !!

you make it sound like Israel is very generous and kind hearted when it
allows Palestinians to go back to their land !! come on it is their land!

their land was not in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or anywhere else; it was
where Israelis are living now. So the onus is on Israel alone
 
  • #35
kyleb


when we talk of "rights", we can mean either legal rights or moral rights … both types are of course perfectly legitimate, but UNGA Resolutions (such as 194) generally convey no legal right (only, arguably, moral rights), while UNSA Resolutions do convey legal rights.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that while Israel's denial of the refugees rights is decidedly immoral, it isn't illegal?

Regardless, where does the UN declare that such UNGA resolutions affirm anything less than legal rights?

Also, I noticed you reaching for claims of racism, are you one of the many who believe the vast majority of the world is Judophobic biased on the votes to uphold Palestinian rights in the UN? For whoever isn't aware of this phenomena, I recommend checking out this website which tracks UN resolutions against Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, refugees or otherwise:

UN Watch notes that the disproportionate attention and unfair treatment applied by the UN toward Israel over the years offers an object lesson (though not the only one) in how due process, equal treatment, and other fundamental principles of the UN Charter are often ignored or selectively upheld.
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm [Broken]

All Palestinians are asking for, and have been since long before Hamas, is for Israel to respect their rights as they are constantly reaffirmed by the vast majority of the nations of the world for 60 years and counting. Only US veto power denies the Security Counsel resolutions needed to persuade Israel to respect those rights, but instead Israel continues it's conquest over what little of Palestine is left. Where does anyone see any justice in this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
UN General Assembly powers, and racist insult

I'm sorry, are you arguing that while Israel's denial of the refugees rights is decidedly immoral, it isn't illegal?

:rofl: :rofl: (i assume you meant to be funny! :wink:)

Regardless, where does the UN declare that such UNGA resolutions affirm anything less than legal rights?
Good question :smile: … Articles 10 to 17 (constituting the section "FUNCTIONS and POWERS"), in Chapter IV of the UN charter, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml [Broken], sets out the powers of the General Assembly.

Those powers are only to consider, discuss, and make recommendations. Legal rights (and all other action) have to be left to the Security Council …
Article 11

2. … Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.
3.The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.
4.The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.
Article 12
1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
wikipedia summarises these powers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution
Although General Assembly resolutions are generally non-binding towards member states, internal resolutions may be binding on the operation of the General Assembly itself, for example with regard to budgetary and procedural matters.
UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.
Also, I noticed you reaching for claims of racism
What do you mean "reaching"? A racist word was used, with no apparent reason other than racist insult. Are you seriously suggesting that one should remain silent in the face of racist insult? :frown:

And the word was deliberately mis-spelled to bring out the insult even more graphically … from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster
Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally "one who defecates," from the verb scheissen, "to defecate," with the English suffix -ster, "one who does," substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a *****.
are you one of the many who believe the vast majority of the world is Judophobic biased on the votes to uphold Palestinian rights in the UN?
I assume you're referring to the allegation that some people accuse any criticism of Israel as racist … my accusation (not against you) wasn't about any criticism of Israel, it was about a personal insult that had nothing to do with Israel.

wasn't it? :frown:
For whoever isn't aware of this phenomena, I recommend checking out this website which tracks UN resolutions against Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, refugees or otherwise:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm [Broken]

Sorry … what is the point you're making about UN Watch? :confused:

You haven't quoted, from the same page …

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
"I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations' activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close attention to your observations and views in the years ahead." —Letter to Ambassador Morris B. Abram, Chairman of UN Watch, Jan. 30, 1997. See also Secretary-General Annan's 1999 Tribute to UN Watch Founder Morris B. Abram.

United Nations Office at Geneva Director-General Sergei Ordzho- nikidze:
"Allow me to pay tribute to the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all." —Statement Delivered at Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, March 16, 2006.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
205
0


Yes you did … in post #19, you quoted (without saying where you were quoting from) a long passage including the words


The chronology shows clearly that that is not true … which you still seemed reluctant to accept. :frown:
In that case my source was incorrect, please try and distinguish that, I also doubt the source is wrong but there you go, that's nothing to do with what I claimed. I did not make mention of a particular chronology. Source is wiki and not only that it's citations are the actual resolution.

"scheister" … is that racists' language for "Jewish lawyer"? :mad:

Dagas, have some common-sense … I think you can safely assume that anyone in a physics forum is not a lawyer. :rofl: :rofl:
Racist? It's a Yiddish word for a lawyer who's less than on the level so no. Not unless the Jews are racist against themselves. And obviously I was joking thus the :tongue: smilie.

I entirely accept that anything signed or promised by Israel is a contract, or similar legal commitment.

But the Protocol does not contain any promise … if you still maintain it does, can you please point to the words of that promise? :frown:


Well, it certainly isn't asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted elsewhere.
Except the UN resolution.

If you wish to continue your claim that Israel made an assertion or promise about right of return, and then broke it, then please give some evidence of it … all documentation is by now available somewhere on the internet.
They did, they said so, and they agreed to the UN resolution.

If you can't or won't produce the actual assertion or promise, then stop claiming that there was one. :frown:
No because it's history, and you seem to think agreeing to a resolution, and making a promise to action it in return for membership to the UN doesn't constitute a promise.

I think I've done more than enough to establish that Israel made a clear assent to action the right of return at some point, if you continue to deny it that's your look out, but there you go. History doesn't change on your whims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_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, 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;
Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".[2] The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. After Israel became a member of the United Nations, the only attempt at any repatriation was a short-lived offer to accept 100,000 refugees, but no more. This offer, which was rejected by the Arabs, was then quickly withdrawn by Israel.[1] David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, insisted in an interview with the members of the Conciliations Commission that as long as Israel could not count on the dedication of any Arab refugees to remain "at peace with their neighbors" - a consequence, he contended, of the Arab states' unwillingness to remain at peace with the state of Israel - resettlement was not an obligation for his country.[2]
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Alfi


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.
Apart from a bunch of facts that have been questioned, I noticed a comment that seems to have struck me to ponder.
"since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …"

I live in a Toronto, a city of about five Million. It's a lot of people but not an impossible number. They ( the refugee's ) had to have been there before if they are trying to return. Why would a large city's worth of people end a separate state?
 
  • #39
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,420
8,610


They ( the refugee's ) had to have been there before if they are trying to return.
It's not so simple. "Return" does not just mean the people who once lived there 60 years ago. There's probably not more than 100,000 people in that category. It's their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who number in the millions.
 
  • #40
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46


It's not so simple. "Return" does not just mean the people who once lived there 60 years ago. There's probably not more than 100,000 people in that category. It's their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who number in the millions.
And that IS a problem. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine some 60 years ago will be complete soon if Israel is allowed to narrowly construe "return" as applying only the actual persons driven off, and thus disenfranchise the descendants of those whose farms, homes, businesses, etc were stolen from them.
 
  • #41
918
16


disenfranchise the descendants of those whose farms, homes, businesses, etc were stolen from them.
That's a rather harsh description of the situation, but if you are willing to vacate your own home in order to return it to the decendents of those from whom it was stolen, then who are we to protest.
 
  • #42
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46


That's a rather harsh description of the situation, but if you are willing to vacate your own home in order to return it to the decendents of those from whom it was stolen, then who are we to protest.
I AM a descendant of people whose property was taken from them by European settlers. On my mother's side I have French heritage (the French generally cooperated with and intermarried with the native Americans).

It's not a harsh description of the situation to speak the truth about how the Zionists (who controlled less than 10% of the land prior to 1948) came to establish a Jewish state. Palestinians were driven off and murdered by Zionists using terrorism (organized violence against civilians). The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.
 
  • #43
918
16


The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.
Not just this time and place. All times and all places. If you want everyone to go back to where they came from, then why start with the Israelis in particular? A few Isrealis have intermarried with Palestinians. Does that settle the matter?
 
  • #44
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


I AM a descendant of people whose property was taken from them by European settlers. On my mother's side I have French heritage (the French generally cooperated with and intermarried with the native Americans).

It's not a harsh description of the situation to speak the truth about how the Zionists (who controlled less than 10% of the land prior to 1948) came to establish a Jewish state. Palestinians were driven off and murdered by Zionists using terrorism (organized violence against civilians). The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.
China, Russia, and the United States (permanent members of the UN Security Council) are not very likely to ever order the return of Palestinians since it would set a very bad precedent for them. Canada wouldn't be very happy, either. (Generally, the larger a country's area, the more indigenous 'nations' that were displaced completely or placed under some other nation's rule).

The United States might support a monetary settlement, since that's how the US has generally handled dealing with its past (the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example).
 
  • #45
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46


Diplomatically, "right of return" is the stick, and peace under a two-state solution is the carrot. The major players in the UN (US chief among them) are reluctant to force any solution on the party with the upper hand (Israel), though it would be of benefit to all to see this conflict resolved. Until this changes, military might will be the determining factor in the region.

Realistically, there is no way that Palestinians could ever re-settle their properties safely - Israel's right-wing would never allow it, even if the majority of Israelis came to agree to it. Even now, they are not secure in the West Bank and are losing territory to settlements, barriers, roads with check-points, etc. None of that will change unless the UN demands it and forces sanctions for non-compliance.
 
  • #46
Judy


Not just this time and place. All times and all places. If you want everyone to go back to where they came from, then why start with the Israelis in particular? A few Isrealis have intermarried with Palestinians. Does that settle the matter?
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is totally different from any other case. You can not say
" If you want everyone to go back to where they come from, then why start with Israelis?"
There is not a case in the whole history that you can refer to as similar to the Palestinians' and Israelis' situation.
this situation is different for many reasons:

1-Israel established its state in the middle of Arab states,and by force and aggressive means.( for sure it would not be welcomed)

2- that happened 60 years ago ( which is relatively not a long period when compared with similar situations) meaning: those generations who witnessed the way Israel occupied their land, and expelled them by force would not let go easily their right to return.

3- The owners of this land ( Palestine) are still there,and alive!!
They are living in huge numbers squeezed in a small strip. So, it is their basic right to be back to their land

these reasons are among many to make Palestinians ( plus Arab people) hope of a Palestinian independent state established exactly where it was before, even if it costs the destruction of Israel since Israel has done the very same thing once.
 
  • #47
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
purpose of the Protocol

ADDENDUM to my post #20, in which I couldn't find the original scope of the Lausanne Conference :redface:
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:
I've at last found :smile: that the original scope of the Lausanne Conference was laid down by "[url[/URL] (16 November 1948) …
[QUOTE]2. [I]Calls upon [/I]the parties directly involved in the conflict in Palestine, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter, to seek agreement forthwith, by negotiations conducted either directly or through the Acting Mediator, with a view to the immediate establishment of the armistice, including:
(a) The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;
(b) Such withdrawal and reduction of their armed forces will ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine.[/QUOTE]
… which orders the parties to [B]negotiate[/B], but only as to armistice lines and withdrawing to them.

Then [URL]http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm"[/URL]
(11 December 1948) set up a Conciliation Commission (with 3 members: France USA and Turkey) to chair these negotiations, [I]but[/I] although it could [I]force[/I] the parties to negotiate armistice lines (because UNSC 62 had mandated it), it could not [I]force[/I] them to negotiate anything else …

and so the UNGA merely politely requested the parties to enlarge the negotiations to include "all questions outstanding between them" (including [I]territorial adjustments[/I] and[I] refugees[/I]) …
[QUOTE][SIZE="1"]5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;
6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

From paragraph 10 of the [PLAIN]http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument" [Broken] …
10. The Commission … the matters outstanding … particularly the refugee question and the territorial question, were closely interlinked, has urged the Arab and Israeli delegations to extend their exchanges of views to all the problems covered by the Assembly resolution.
To this end, it asked the two parties separately to sign with the commission a Protocol … which would constitute the basis of work. To this document was annexed a map …, which has thus been taken as the basis of discussion with the Commission. It is understood that any necessary adjustments of these boundaries could be proposed.
… we see that the Conciliation Commission persuaded the parties to commit themselves to negotiations on all matters by having them sign the Protocol of 12 May 1949. :smile:

The Protocol self-evidently does not contain any substantive agreement or promise on any subject … this post is simply to show what the procedural agreement was (which is not self-evident :rolleyes:).​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
205
0


You do know these same excuses are used by Israel, to try and weasel out of agreements they made in supposedly good faith. No one bought it then, no one is going to now, as I said they made promises that they should of kept, and then reneged on them. That is all I have said so far, so if you're aiming that at me, and saying what they should do then that is not what I have argued. As to whether it was a contract verbal and signed, I'd say yes. They failed to act on it even in the slightest. That's not at issue.
 
  • #49
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251


… and you seem to think agreeing to a resolution, and making a promise to action it in return for membership to the UN doesn't constitute a promise.
Of course I agree that that would constitute a promise :frown:

but not only is there no evidence that Israel did that, the evidence points clearly to the contrary

the documents signed by Israel at Lausanne clearly show that Israel promised nothing before the vote on UN inclusion …

(and nothing after inclusion except the August 3 1949 offer to allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return, although not necessarily to their villages)
I entirely accept that anything signed or promised by Israel is a contract, or similar legal commitment.

But the Protocol does not contain any promise … if you still maintain it does, can you please point to the words of that promise? :frown:


Well, it certainly isn't asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted elsewhere.
Except the UN resolution.
If you wish to continue your claim that Israel made an assertion or promise about right of return, and then broke it, then please give some evidence of it … all documentation is by now available somewhere on the internet.
They did, they said so, and they agreed to the UN resolution.
:confused: Where? In what words did Israel agree to the UN resolution (UN General Assembly Resolution 194)?

I repeat … no agreement or promise by Israel is asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted by Israel elsewhere.

If you can't or won't produce the actual assertion or promise, then stop claiming that there was one. :frown:
No because it's history, …

I think I've done more than enough to establish that Israel made a clear assent to action the right of return at some point, if you continue to deny it that's your look out, but there you go. History doesn't change on your whims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees.
oh i see … you're relying on two sentences in wikipedia …

No, it's not history … it's two sentences in wikipedia that contradict everything else available :rolleyes:

wikipedia is not always right

and in this case just looking at the Protocol which wikipedia quotes shows clearly that wikipedia is wrong in this case.

"history", as you call it, is not casting around the internet for one line that contradicts everything else available …

history is not wishful thinking based on no evidence, or based on someone else's wishful thinking based on no evidence …

history is taken from the original documents, which you are refusing to do. :frown:
 
  • #50
205
0


Look it doesn't mention that Israel was under pressure to include some discussion of RoR, for inclusion into the UN either in the exact text, but there's a lot more to a conference than just signing up to something, promises were made, reneged on, because of this 194 was passed, they also don't think this applies to them. You work it out. If you have trouble with the sources that's not my problem. Short of me finding the complete minutes of the entire conference I can only produce what was discussed in citation terms in Wiki.

Please note I do not specify that they should action a RoR in its entirety or otherwise, I say they signed up to expedite the issue. You seem to be making out I'm trying to prove something I'm not. All I am saying is there needed to be an agreement between the two parties, it had to be discussed and the two sides agreed on it. That could of meant financial compensation, limited right of return anything. But the fact that they agreed to work something out is entirely a moot point.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Right of return (Palestinian)

  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
68
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top