Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumDo Something, Anything: Naming and Shaming in Yarmouk | Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud -- World News Trust
April 15, 2015
The population of Syria’s Palestinian Refugee Camp, Yarmouk -- the population of which once exceeded 250,000, dwindling throughout the Syrian civil war to 18,000 -- are a microcosm of the story of a whole nation, whose perpetual pain shames us all, none excluded.
Refugees who escaped the Syrian war or are displaced in Syria itself, are experiencing the cruel reality under the harsh and inhospitable terrains of war and Arab regimes. Many of those who remained in Yarmouk were torn to shreds by the barrel bombs of the Syrian army, or victimized by the malicious, violent groupings that control the camp, including the al-Nusra Front, and as of late, IS.
Those who have somehow managed to escape bodily injury are starving. The starvation in Yarmouk is also the responsibility of all parties involved, and the “inhumane conditions” under which they subsist -- especially since December 2012 -- is a badge of shame on the forehead of the international community in general, and the Arab League in particular.
These are some of the culprits in the suffering of Yarmouk:
more
http://worldnewstrust.com/do-something-anything-naming-and-shaming-in-yarmouk-ramzy-baroud
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Who could've seen that one coming?
King_David
(14,851 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)His (distant) second favorite target for criticism.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He's casting blame on everyone.
Can you maybe point out where he's wrong on any of it? it'd be great to see something beyond color commentary from you.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Israel is listed #1 in his list of culprits.
It is literally the next sentence after the link.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Those who have somehow managed to escape bodily injury are starving. The starvation in Yarmouk is also the responsibility of all parties involved, and the “inhumane conditions” under which they subsist -- especially since December 2012 -- is a badge of shame on the forehead of the international community in general, and the Arab League in particular.
His most damning blame goes towards the Syrian regime for bombing the camp, and the Arab league for being more interested in making its own sectarian strike force to 'settle old scores' than actually protect vulnerable lives.
But that doesn't fuel your persecution complex, so no wonder it passed by your radar.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He presents a list of culprits, and Israel is the first one listed. That's what was not shocking considering his past writings on Israel.
I am not even sure how you can possibly even be attempting to argue that Israel is not the first culprit he lists in the article as it very plainly is.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe you ought to stick with complaining that Tace posts Ramzy's picture with each article?
shira
(30,109 posts)
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)“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;”
shira
(30,109 posts)There are maybe 30,000 left from 1948. Of those, only the ones willing to live at peace should be...
So this "right" doesn't apply to > 99% of those considered to be refugees by Ramzy Baroud.
He's a liar.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It was inconceivable that the conflict would be unsolved more than 60 years later. Their right to return was then passed down to the next generation through their registration as UNRWA refugees.
I strongly believe that any person has a complete right to live in his ancestral homeland. I don't know of any people in history that should be denied that right. The ancestral home of the Palestinians is Palestine, and all Palestinians have, at least in the way I see it, an absolute and unambiguous right to return.
Your other posts in this thread reveals a certain... resistance. I will not discuss this further.
shira
(30,109 posts)In all other situations since WW2, the children of refugees are given citizenship in the nations to which they are born. That's Article 7 in the Convention of the Right of the Child.
Also, many that are deemed refugees today are not. For example, all Palestinians in the W.Bank were given Jordanian citizenship prior to 1967. If they're refugees, they are Jordanian refugees.
Lastly, most of these refugees already live in historic Palestine (Gaza, W.Bank, Jordan). Try to take that in - most Palestinian refugees already live in historic Palestine. At best, they're displaced persons, not refugees.
You've been duped.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...they have no "right" of Return.
You walking that back? Or do you wish to deny you ever wrote such a thing?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You see, UNRWA was established prior to UNHCR. UNRWA extended refugee status to descendants - as was actually the norm for the time. This status could not legally be stripped from them, even if an "updated' definition of refugees came around later (one may wonder about the need to narrow the definition of "refugee" but I suspect it would be banal and inspire a desire to leave the planet.) UNWRA set the standard. That standard cannot be revoked. It does create a "special case" for Palestinian refugees, but in all fairness, they're the only refugees who have been locked out of their home for seventy fucking years. Which must be pretty annoying considering most of them are within walking distance of said homes.
It's less "walking back" and more "I did not know this fact at that time."
And of course, in our previous discussions on the subject, I mentioned a few other things.
1) Return is an individual right. That is, an individual and only that individual can decide whether or not htey exercise it. Importantly this means that it cannot be signed off for them by a third party (which is why the UNRWA standard stands, and why Abbas can't pawn it off in "negotiations."
2) Israel has the right to deny entry - granted it has to come up with a legitimate reason for doing so (ethnic quotas are not a legitimate reason.) This is Israel's right as a sovereign nation. Though it might want to figure out where the fuck its borders are before it starts trying to deny people entry over those borders, I think. If there are people who have nefarious aims seeking entry, Israel can just deny them. Israel has seventy years of practice doing this, on a far larger scale
3) Most of the refugees have no interest in returning to Israel. 54% say they would be happy enough with a "return" to the west bank or Gaza. Of the remaining number, only 10% do want to return to Israel. The remainder want to live somewhere else (and given the choice between the west bank, Gaza, or Israel, who could blame someone who uses "Bulgaria" as a write-in option? Imagine! Picturesque small towns, no meaningful central government breathing down your neck, all the squalor you can eat...)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
....for this "legal right". It's not there, so Ramzy Baroud lied. It's not in 194, but it's also not up for UNRWA to decide. UNRWA cannot make Israel legally accountable for anything they concoct.
Now you say UNRWA set the standard for inheritance of refugee status. When was that? It wasn't when UNRWA was first established. That's for damned sure. I recall that it was sometime around 1965. I'd have to check into that, but you can look into it as well. Point is, inherited refugee status came WAY later than 1948-50.
Also, consider that all W.Bank Palestinians were granted Jordanian citizenship prior to 1967. That means they ceased being Palestinian refugees, but UNRWA still counts them and their descendants regardless. In fact, Palestinians with citizenship elsewhere (America, Canada) can still be considered refugees by UNRWA.
That certainly wasn't established either when UNRWA first came into being. It's total crap.
And then there are the refugees in Gaza, the W.Bank, and Jordan who are ALREADY living within historic Palestine. That's the majority of refugees. Already in their historic homeland. At best, they're displaced persons but not refugees.
Have you really thought this one out, about this "legal right"? There is no such thing. UNRWA's standards are nonsense.
So what's the holdup? Why haven't refugees been resettled if the vast majorty have no interest in returning to Israel? Answer that one and you'll see how ridiculous all this is. Consider that UNRWA will still consider them refugees even if they become citizens elsewhere, so they have nothing to lose (refugee status) by doing so. And yet, they live in Apartheid conditions in Lebanon - denied citizenship just like Palestinians elsewhere throughout the Arab world. Since you say this is an INDIVIDUAL right, you'd think the vast majority who do not wish to live in Israel would already be citizens in their host nations if there were a mechanism in place to do so. They can't. They're being denied that opportunity for the past 70 years due to the depravity of the situation Team Palestine cheerleads and defends wholeheartedly in their quest to "get Israel" and make the Jews pay.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The right exists for all refugees. UNWRA's place in this is that it made the determination that the descendants of Palestinain refugees were themselves refugees. I have to think that at the time there was the assumption that the issue would be settled in under a decade, and they wanted to cover for children born in the interim. But, it's gone on for seventy years. Still, the standard remains.
You're thinking of UNHCR, which was established in 1950, and works somewhat differently.
Citizenship cannot be imposed. Jordan is free to treat Palestinians as Jordanian citizens if it wants - but this does not actually alter their nationality or refugee status. Much as with the decision to return, adopting citizenship is an individual right and cannot be forced upon someone. So no. Not only did Jordan not void their refugee status, but its extension of citizenship is as legally unsound as its attempt to annex the West bank. it can be as friendly as it likes (which on paper is pretty friendly, but in reality, well, you see what happened when Palestinians tried to exercise those "rights" in 1970... turns out they were just privileges extended to foreign nationals after all!)
Well, because the majority would settle for the west bank or gaza... but those are not options because Israel controls those borders and refuses to let them in. They also want what is due to them financially, but again, Israel stonewalls that as well.
Most of the remainder probably do already have another citizenship, thus why they aren't interested in Israel or Palestine.
Not from UNWRA. But as you have been illustrating quite well, it would cause problems for them seeking restitution, by throwing up one more barrier to getting what is due.
No, it's just Lebanon denying citizenship in the Arab world. Y'see, any Palestinian can apply for citizenship in any Arab state - or any other state that allows foreigners to seek citizenship, for that matter. Now, of course the strictures are not uniform, each state has its own criteria for gaining citizenship. But they all offer it. even Kuwait, as of 2005. Lebanon is the only holdout - though I don' suppose syria is processing applications at this very moment (probably forgivable, considering circumstances.)
I've asked you a few times, and i can't recall if i ever got an answer. Why, exactly, do you even have a problem with Lebanon denying citizenship to Palestinians? They do it for exactly the same reason that Israel does, to preserve demographics. But you wholly support Israel for doing it. Why is Lebanon a problem for you?
As I mentioned, that 36% probably are already living somewhere else, or are citizens of their host states, or "favor something else" (you'll note that this was an option in the Time article I linked.) Thus, why they aren't interested. For whatever remainder are stuck in camps but want to go somewhere else, I imagine it's a simple lack of resources. They want to be somewhere besides there, and being dirt poor (you know, refugees receiving no compensation?) they don't have the opportunity to get somewhere better.
Except for the fact that they wouldn't be refugees if they had been allowed to return in the first place. But no, Israel decided that there's no point to ethnic cleansing if you let the people you purged come back (the logic there is sound, if utterly reprehensible.) As a result, we have seventy years of these people in exile, with Israel demanding the rest of the world foot the bill for its crime against those people.
shira
(30,109 posts)....or retaining refugee status once citizenship is attained. The UNHCR allows for special exceptions to the rule, but there are no other populations on the planet growing exponentially like the Palestinian situation. They've all dwindled to zero since WW2. All except for the Palestinians. And in these other cases, the countries from which they came did not allow them back in. They were settled in their host nations as citizens (which I doubt was an imposition forced on them).
You're thinking of UNHCR, which was established in 1950, and works somewhat differently.
Okay, so how does this special case make Israel legally bound to take them in? This right of return for descendants does not exist in any binding law.
This is still special pleading. There is no precedent for what you're attempting to argue anywhere else in the world. Why should Israel be legally bound to this ridiculous exception to the rule that is not in any way considered legally binding?
2 million refugees already reside in the W.Bank and Gaza and they're still considered refugees. Another 2 million are in Jordan. So 4 million out of maybe 5-6 million at most are already living in historic Palestine; within the same Palestine they consider to be their homeland and where they believe they should be settled.
How's that Israel's problem?
It's not just Lebanon. Here's an article about refugees in Egypt being denied basic government services...
http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinian-refugees-egypt-face-discrimination-say-experts/2433
You're assuming refugees in Egypt remain so out of choice, and that they prefer being treated like shit over citizenship. Tell you what, can you find evidence Egypt offers a path towards citizenship for Palestinian refugees? Shouldn't be difficult, right?
Israel had refugees within the '48 armistice lines, but granted citizenship to all Palestinians in the 1950's. The situation isn't the same. Also, according to Israel's chief demography expert, Israel granted citizenship to 97,000 Palestinians between 1993-2001 for family unification purposes. At that pace, the totals would be > 250,000 from 1967-2001. See page 487 here around 2/3 of the way down.
That doesn't work for the refugees of Egypt (see above link). They're denied basic services that would help alleviate being dirt poor (like education).
None of the 10's of millions of refugees from the WW2 era were allowed to return. Especially those in which conflict would occur if they did. You'll note that even in 194, only those willing to live at peace would be considered, so 194 was created with knowledge that the situation resulted from a conflict - not from some racist Zionist desire to ethnically cleanse the land for no reason other than malice.
Besides, as mentioned above, Israel already granted citizenship to Palestinians in its own refugee camps within the '48-'67 lines, as well as the hundreds of thousands granted citizenship between 1967-2001 for family unification purposes. It can easily be argued Israel has already done its part.
shira
(30,109 posts)Like where are all those pro-Palestinians he works with from FreeGaza to the ISM to BDS....
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I base that perception on this paragraph:
Israel knows that the memory of the refugees is its greatest enemy, so when the Palestinian leadership requested that Israel allow the Yarmouk refugees to move to the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a condition: that they renounce their right of return. Palestinians refused. The refugees would have refused. History has shown that Palestinians would endure untold suffering and not abandon their rights in Palestine.
Ramzy himself does not seem to be enduring untold suffering, but I guess he feels that he can speak on behalf of those who are.
I would imagine that some of the residents of Yarmouk who were killed recently would have preferred to be alive and living in Ramallah.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why do you support such conditionality, Oberliner?
Tace
(6,800 posts)The situation is very similar to the extermination of American Indians, and forced displacement of the few remaining, over the past few centuries.
--Tace : )
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)there are some here it seems that have no problem what so ever with Israel's self serving and callous conditions placed on allowing Palestinian refugees into Palestine
Israel bears direct responsibility in the plight of the refugees in Yarmouk, as they do the five million other refugees across the Middle East. The refugees of Yarmouk are mostly the descendants of Palestinian refugees from historic Palestine, especially the northern towns, including Safad, which is now inside Israel. The camp was established in 1957, nearly a decade after the Nakba – the “Catastrophe” of 1948, which saw the expulsion of nearly a million refugees from Palestine. It was meant to be a temporary shelter, but it became a permanent home. Its residents never abandoned their right of return to Palestine, a right enshrined in UN resolution 194.
Israel knows that the memory of the refugees is its greatest enemy, so when the Palestinian leadership requested that Israel allow the Yarmouk refugees to move to the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a condition: that they renounce their right of return. Palestinians refused. The refugees would have refused. History has shown that Palestinians would endure untold suffering and not abandon their rights in Palestine. The fact that Netanyahu would place such a condition is not just a testimony to Israel’s fear of Palestinian memory, but the political opportunism and sheer ruthlessness of the Israeli government.
http://ramzybaroud.net/my-missing-family-in-syria-naming-and-shaming-in-yarmouk/
shira
(30,109 posts)There is no such right for > 99% who wish to go to Israel. It's a lie and is as make-believe as the tooth fairy.
Besides, most of the millions already live within historic Palestine (Gaza, W.Bank, Jordan).
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The law of State succession reflects the practice of States in regard to nationality. In almost all peace treaties reached in modern history, individuals belonging to a former State have ipso facto acquired the nationality of the succeeding State. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, under which Turkey relinquished its title to Palestine, provided the basis for the Palestine inhabitants’ nationality. It stipulated that Turkish subjects habitually residing in territories detached from Turkey would acquire the nationality of the new State, namely Palestine. The inhabitants were granted Palestinian nationality when such detachment took place. Israel cannot, according to international law, deny the nationality of Palestinians who were residing in the parts of Palestine that became Israel. In 1950, the Israel Law of Return granted Israeli nationality to any Jew who was present in or immigrated to Israel. This was applicable regardless of whether the Jew was a Palestinian citizen or not. The Arab inhabitants of Israel, who had previously held Palestinian nationality, were gradually granted Israeli citizenship based on the 1952 Israel Nationality Law. Israel could, however, decide that Palestinian nationality had ceased to exist in the area under Israel’s jurisdiction. But Israel could not withdraw the nationality from Palestinian citizens who were displaced from their places of habitual residence in the territory of Palestine in which Israel was established. The right to obtain Israeli nationality by the citizens of Mandate Palestine entails the right of return to Israel. Article 14(2) of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States stated: ‘A State concerned shall take all necessary measures to allow persons concerned who, because of events connected with the succession of States, were forced to leave their habitual residence on its territory to return thereto.’
The human rights law offers the third basis. Article 13(2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: ‘Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.’ This provision represents a declaration of binding international law recognized by almost all States. It entails the freedom of Palestinians to leave their country, regardless of whether they have left that country (i.e. Mandate Palestine) as refugees or travelers, and to return thereto. Israel or any other State established in Mandate Palestine would definitively be the country of Palestinian refugees to which they are entitled to return. Likewise, Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ Palestine or any of its successor States, including Israel, is considered for each refugee as his own country. These explicit rules govern the return for Palestinian citizens, including refugees
http://cjicl.org.uk/2012/11/26/bases-for-the-palestinian-refugees-right-of-return-under-international-law-beyond-general-assembly-resolution-194-2/
shira
(30,109 posts)There were 10's of millions of other refugees during the WW2 era.
They were all taken in by their host nations as citizens. No descendants of refugees from that era continue being refugees to this day. The Palestinian situation is w/o question an exception to everything the UNHRC does on refugees, and what the UNHRC does is standard procedure under Int'l Law. They've resettled all other refugees elsewhere and have never demanded their return. The reason there have been no demands on any other nations is b/c it's not required.
It's not as this paper presents it, where the UNHRC yields to UNRWA guidelines WRT Palestinians as though that's Int'l Law. International Law has never been based on the Palestinian model. The reason why is it's simply not International Law. The Palestinian situation under UNRWA is an exception to the rule; only applied to Israel and no other nation on the planet. It's complete bullshit.
The only way the paper you cite can make its case is if it can be demonstrated that in all situations (from the WW2 era) other refugees also had a right of return (like the Palestinians) that's actually binding. The fact is NONE of them have such a right. It simply doesn't exist. You'd have something if you could show that in other situations from that era, those refugees AND their descendants had this legal right of return....that other countries were required and adhered to such a law....and that Israel, unlike those nations, were in violation of a law others complied to.
There's nothing there.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because you see it does not say these rules apply only to Palestinians but rather how they apply to Palestinians