Right of return (Palestinian)

  • News
  • Thread starter tiny-tim
  • Start date
  • #51
kyleb


:rofl: :rofl: (i assume you meant to be funny! :wink:)
I do not see any comedy in denying the rights of millions of refugees, and I find it disturbing that you do.

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.
What you quoted doesn't even mention the status of the rights affermed by UN resolutions, let alone does it mention the distinction in status you claim.

UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.
It is my understanding that the UNGA resolution 181 partition plan established the legal right for Israel to exist. If I am to accept your claim of a distinction betwen rights, then I will be left with no knowledge of any legal basis for Israel's right to exist. So, while I'm still looking for you to substantiate your claim that the UN makes any such distinction of rights; I am also curious to know what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all?

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
First off, there is no racial connotation to the term. More directly, the majority of shysters in this world aren't Jews, and the majority of Jews in this world aren't shysters.

That said, you are reaching when you ascribe a racial connotation to a word which doesn't have one. You are reaching even further when you post a link that doesn't suggest any racial connotation to the word you claim has one. You are even more reaching when you allege a misspelling of that word is a deliberate attempt to amplify that nonexistent racial connotation. You may not have done any of this deliberately, but you have been making reaching attempts to play the racism-card here just the same.

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:

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

You haven't quoted, from the same page
I didn't quote what you did there because it has no bearing on my point. Again, the fact that the vast majority of the nations of the world's constant reaffirmation of the rights of Palestinians misleads some to belive world is racist against Jews. Since you have been perpetuating similar sophistry, I am curious to know how far you go with it, and presented that website as an example of the exteme to people who aren't aware of the this phenomena.

Regardless, I don't see how anything less than racism could have facilitated Israel's violent uprooting of masses of Palestinians, and the decades long and ongoing denial of the rights of those resulting refugees and Palestinians as a whole. How else could Israel have committed that original injustice against those refugees, and continue perpetrating that injustice and others against Palestinians in general to this day, other than though deeply ingrained bigoty against them? Is that why you found my previous question on the immorality of denying Palestinians refugee rights humorous?

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).
There difference here is that Israel is has continued to maintain military occupation over Palestinian territory for decades, while colonizing across that territory with Israeli civilian settlements. This leaves millions of Palestinians stateless, including many refugees of what is now Israel, permanently denied civil rights by Israel martial law, as Israel kills off anyone who stands in the way of their ongoing conquest over what little of Palestine is left. Furthermore, all one has to do is check the documentation to see that, aside from the US, all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Canada and the rest of the world, often demonstrate their respect for this difference with UNGA resolutions affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees, such as this one I posted previously:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49634ced2.html

That resolution was adopted with a vote of 173-1-6, as recounted here:

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/...e=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=A/RES/63/91#focus

If our US government had any real interest in supporting a monetary settlement, we could have done so decades ago rather than vetoing any Security Counsel resolutions directed at imposing such a just conclusion to this conflict. Unfortunately, in the US and Israel, we've been flooded with masses of propaganda to blame the victims of Israels conquest over Palestine. I doubt many of our leaders in both nations even realise they are misguiding themselves with such chicanery, and I am sure most of the population doesn't, but that is exactly what allows Israel to deny the rights of Palestinians, refugees and otherwise. Again, is Israel's conquest over Palestine nothing more than a manifestation of racism, or where anyone find any actual justice in continuing this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
205
0


I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt. I think Scheister is the original Yiddish a corruption of the German word Sheisser, and Shyster is the US corruption not sure, either way it's a slang term like schmuck.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt.
oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php [Broken]

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled. :mad:

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?
 
  • #55
drizzle
Gold Member
366
57


are you trying to warn someone to lock the thread? as long no one overcome the roles, it is ok to keep it ....and necessary too
 
Last edited:
  • #56
drizzle
Gold Member
366
57


sorry if that sounds rude
 
  • #57
kyleb


This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?
Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.
 
  • #58
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46


Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.
George Mitchell, son of Lebanese Christian emigrees to Maine, has just been appointed by Obama as Mid-East envoy. Let's see what happens.
 
  • #59
kyleb


I agree that Obama's appointment of Mitchell looks promising, particularly considering his previous efforts on this conflict, and his work in Northern Ireland. However, there is massive wall of support for Israel's conquest over Palestine, as evidenced by the nearly unanimous devotion across Congress and the media. We have a society which has be conditioned to condemn terrorists for their deplorable tactics, while completely ignoring our deplorable and long standing denial of Palestinians rights which inspires such terrorism.

Put simply, I'd rather not just sit back and watch, as that is what our nation has been doing for decades now, since before I was born. Having studied this conflict thoroughly over the past decade, I have seen been many times of promise over the history, but all have fallen well short of their stated goal, and often only served to further exasperate discord. This has left us perpetuating the conquest over Palestine, as we seem destined to do until our society can rid itself of the illusions that there is some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hff2p705cUI" to be found in any of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
205
0


oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php [Broken]

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled. :mad:

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scheister

http://www.fvrss.com/2008/07/attorneys-at-law-swindel-scheister.html

Like I say the word is Yiddish and slang. If The Jews are racist against themselves, it would be quite ironic don't you think? You are aware that Yiddish is a German/Hebrew language right? It wouldn't be racist if it was referring to an underhanded Jewish Lawyer, it was a joke, for God's sake let it lie already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that? :mad:
 
  • #62
205
0


(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that? :mad:
It's slang ok why are you pressing this so hard, I looked it up in a slang dictionary because it's a slang term. What's up with that? There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.
 
  • #63
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,420
8,610


There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.
In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.
 
  • #64
205
0


In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.
Who cares? Really do you not think this thread has been derailed enough by pedantry? Or did you just think I know, I'll add to the derail for a laugh? The fact is Scheister is a slang term, it's used by people in the real world, now can we all just shut the **** up really, it's petty and we don't need it. This is what happens when someone's arguments fall apart, they detiriorate into petty point picking, it's sad, but there you go.

I can't spell shlemiel well that's my life over, the Jewish Womens Guild will never let me play their club again. :wink::rolleyes:

And for the record, I am not a racist either, thanks very much. *slaps head* Oy vey!
 
Last edited:
  • #65
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.
Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existance, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question. Forget justice. Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it. The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.
 
  • #66
kyleb


Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existance, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question.
How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?

Forget justice.
That is what we have been doing here for decades now, and I don't see any good coming out of it.

Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.
I never suggested eliminating Israel's government or cultural infrastructure, and would never do so even if Israel had no nuclear capabilities.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it.
The Arab nations have accepted Israel's existence, they just want this conflict resolved by peaceful means on the basis of international law, all they need is for us to stop vetoing the UN resolutions which would accomplish that goal.

The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.
Cutting South Africa off from the resources necessary to continue the practice of apartheid though sanctions and divestment shows how much significance the UN and world opinion can have here, if only US veto power woudn't block it.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?
What "right thing" are you after here specifically?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.
What "something" would you recommend Palestinians focus on?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?
This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation. The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely. The negotiation should be over the what the reasonable value is.

Rockets landing in Israel raise the reasonable value since part of the payment is just to get the rocket fire to stop. Wiping out the capability to fire rockets into Israel lowers the reasonable value considerably.

Edit: The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel. As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part. The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.
 
  • #68
205
0


I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.
 
  • #69
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46


Under international law, the right of return is a guarantee to refugees that must be honored. Israel could likely end its conflict with the Palestinians by withdrawing from the west bank and ceding enough territory to allow the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By doing this, they would pull the teeth of the radicals in Palestine, and the Palestinians could have a viable reason to waive the right of return.

This will never happen as long as any single permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the General Assembly, as the US has consistently done in the case of resolutions seen as detrimental to Israel's interests.
 
  • #70
kyleb


This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation.
It is the solution the world acknowledges, but US veto power in the UN allows Israel to refuse that solution.

The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely.
How does Israel's refusal to accept Palestinians rights do anything to lower the value of them?

The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel.
I gathered that much.

As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part.
Do you not understand the fact that Jews employed overwhelming military force to drive out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from throughout both sides of the partition in the months before declaring statehood?

Regardless, you are mistaken in believing those resulting refugees were ever provided the opportunity to accept the partition.

The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting we all forget justice in favor of embracing the power to perpetuate iniquity? Or rather, in simple terms; might makes right?

I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.
Rightful claim would be Israel's alone if Palestinians were given reasonable compensation for their losses. Furthermore, considering even Quran condones accepting blood money to resolve a conflict, I am curious to know what parties are you suggesting would not agree to such a resolution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
205
0


Under international law, the right of return is a guarantee to refugees that must be honored. Israel could likely end its conflict with the Palestinians by withdrawing from the west bank and ceding enough territory to allow the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By doing this, they would pull the teeth of the radicals in Palestine, and the Palestinians could have a viable reason to waive the right of return.

This will never happen as long as any single permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the General Assembly, as the US has consistently done in the case of resolutions seen as detrimental to Israel's interests.
That's the point of compromise, both sides lose something to gain something amicable. Let's face it Israel will never agree to a full right to return so we have to be pragmatic. If they revert to pre 1967 borders and Palestine gives up a physical right of return for a limited one with monetary compensation, they may have something they can agree on.
 
  • #72
205
0


kyleb said:
Rightful claim would be Israel's alone if Palestinians were given reasonable compensation for their losses. Furthermore, considering even Quran condones accepting blood money to resolve a conflict, I am curious to know what parties are you suggesting would not agree to such a resolution?
Hamas, and all hard liners in Fatah, as well as presumably some of the people who lost land.
 
  • #73
kyleb


Where have you found any Palestinians refusing the possibility of ceding their right of return in exchange for reasonable compensation? At least as much as I've looked into this conflict, I have yet to find anything standing in the way of resolving the refugee issue though such restitution other than Israel's lack of interest in arranging anything of the sort.
 
  • #74
Alfi


Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existance, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question. Forget justice. .
Again, this 'out of existence' thing. This time it's not being wiped out, it's being negotiated out of existence. It's beginning to sound like an irrational fear.
Let's not forget justice. Ask for it, Demand it if you feel strong enough.
 
  • #75
205
0


Where have you found any Palestinians refusing the possibility of ceding their right of return in exchange for reasonable compensation? At least as much as I've looked into this conflict, I have yet to find anything standing in the way of resolving the refugee issue though such restitution other than Israel's lack of interest in arranging anything of the sort.
I remember reading it somewhere. It's not important anyway.
 

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