Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPalestinians: Apartheid State If Netanyahu Wins
6:02p.m. EST January 18, 2013
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinians have long complained that Israel's right-wing government is killing peace prospects by settling the West Bank with Jews, but now there is something new. The Palestinian president is warning that Benjamin Netanyahu's expected victory in next week's election could lead to an Arab-majority country in the Holy Land that will eventually replace what is now Israel — unless he pursues a more moderate path of a two state solution to the conflict.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been careful not to intervene in Tuesday's Israeli election, but it is no secret that the Palestinians hope that Netanyahu will either be ousted or at least soften his position in a new term. He has shown no sign of doing so, and opinion polls showing hard-line, pro-settlement parties well ahead days before the vote have led to a sense of despair among the Palestinians.
During Netanyahu's current term, the Israeli leader has pressed forward with construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967, along with the Gaza Strip. Abbas says he wants to set up a state in the territories that would exist peacefully next to Israel.
The international community considers settlement construction illegal or illegitimate. And the Palestinians have refused to negotiate with Netanyahu while he continues to allow settlements to be built, saying it is a sign of bad faith.
MORE...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/18/palestinians-apartheid-netanyahu/1846501/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)IOW, 2 states for 2 people. They'll never give up RoR.
Hell, they don't even want the occupation to end! They've been offered that before and have rejected it. They know that once the IDF presence is gone Hamas will take over the W.Bank just as it did in Gaza.
It's not in the PLO's best interests to cut a deal recognizing 2 states for 2 people.
Not even Meretz could cut a deal with the PLO. They'd never agree to RoR either.
delrem
(9,688 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Borders, please?
It's real simple till you're asked for the map.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Who denies the existence of borders, so it can annex more and more of the occupied land?
It's real simple when you look at a map.
shira
(30,109 posts)That offer was for 2 states, end of occupation, end of settlements, half of Jerusalem, and 10's of billions of dollars compensation to refugees.
Olmert offered even more in 2008. That too was rejected.
Did you not know this?
Because if you already knew, then why claim Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Curious how you keep on overlooking that little fact over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-admits-on-video-he-deceived-us-to-destroy-oslo-accord
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/07/19/netanyahu-i-deceived-the-us-to-destroy-oslo-accords/
Did you not know this?
Because if you already knew, then why claim Israel wants to recognize a Palestinian state?
What's the offer now, my friend, 60%?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)
I suppose the hasbarados here expect the Palestinians to accept this offer as well. They seem to demand of the Palestinians that they should unconditionally accept any Israeli offer.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even the more reasonable among them.
Full Right of Return or nothing.
As Abbas said recently:
"It's better they die in Syria than give up their right of return."
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not sure how the progressive anti-hasbarados can spin that statement.
Pretend he never said it seems to be the tactic they are going with.
shira
(30,109 posts)They're not pro-Palestinian as much as they are anti-Israel.
Nothing new there.
And WRT Palestinian RoR, the anti-hasbarados are just like the PLO and Hamas. Not only do they not care whether the refugees drop dead, they believe RoR (property rights) trumps life/death. Ask the anti-hasbarados whether they're for RoR if it results in more war and they'll say they're still for it.
You won't even find one of them who puts basic civil rights first over totalitarian, inhumane, theocratic Palestinian nationalism. This is why they don't care about women's or gay rights (among other rights) in the Palestinian territories.
Rightwing humanitarianism.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Are you referring to DUers or some phantom hiding in your linen closet?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Unless you have something you'd like to post about it. Is it your tactic to talk around it?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the response of Abbas to Olmert's proposal was that "we should look to the Americans to bridge the gaps in a reasonable way", as quoted in the Palestine Papers.
Abbas was clearly not insisting on the full right of return, and in fact made many statements to the contrary, such as that it was unreasonable to expect Israel to accept anything like a million refugees.
I am wondering why you have become so receptive to these sorts of sentiments of late.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I know how you like to take out of context remark from those fabulous "Palestine Papers" - a favorite of anti-hasbarados everywhere - but there is no Palestinian leader who has ever publicly indicated a willingness to compromise on Right of Return.
And Abbas, literally just a week or two ago, specifically said that he would rather Palestinians die in Syria than give up r of r.
I am wondering why you are grasping at an old anti-hasbarado staple and not acknowledging reality as explicitly stated by the Palestinian leader.
And it goes without saying that the Hamas-led government leaders have also repeatedly on record said that there would be no such compromise.
It is important to accept reality.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)That is a conspiracist position that finds currency amongst some of the flakier hasbaradim, but I am surprised that you would be endorsing it. Even Israeli leaders have essentially conceded that the papers are genuine.
Abbas has been willing to compromise on the right of return in negotiations with the Israelis. He has of course been less willing to communicate those concessions publicly. Of course, that has always been the tendency of those who find themselves on the weaker side in any negotiation. Take the Bible, for instance:-
26Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it (but not the common people). Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”
shira
(30,109 posts)...that shows what Netanyahu tried to do before the Clinton Initiatives were offered actually failed.
If Netanyahu torpedoed Oslo and the peace process, how is it that the next government in charge (Barak and the Israeli cabinet) agreed to the Clinton Initiatives? Or Olmert, who offered even more in 2008?
FAIL.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)others will see it as fact.
Fibi Netanyahu is on record as saying that he helped kill Oslo.
There is plenty of info out on this, and a source is a source.
I'm sure that no matter how many sources are cited as to what Fibi said that there will always be an issue, by some, as to what source it is...how hateful they wish to accuse them of being.
They're waiting for the population swamp out.
Although they're so popular with the rest of the middle east that may not be a good choice.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Even if the people who violated those rights in the first place keep demanding that they do so.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to destroy Israel via RoR.
What does it tell you when neither J-Street or Israel's Meretz party will never allow it?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The right to return to one’s own country, including the right to return of the Palestinians, does have solid foundations in international law. The right to return to one’s own country is addressed in three of the major pillars of international law, which complement and reinforce one other: human rights law, refugee law, and resolutions and declarations by international bodies and authorities that affirm or clarify rules of international law. One principle emphasized by all three is that the right to return to one’s own country is to be enjoyed without discrimination of any kind. In practice, States and intergovernmental organizations do invoke the right to return as a legal right in situations of mass displacement. They also implement the right to return in situations where territories have changed hands and even when the originating facts (those that created the displacement of the populations, for example) precede the existence of the specific legal norms addressing the right to return.
It would be useful to review some of the human rights legal sources and other references on the right to return to one’s own country, in order to help clarify the different dimensions of this human right, to demonstrate how and why it is internationally recognized, and to explain why it is a valid legal principle applicable to the situation of the Palestinian refugees. This memo also includes some recent examples of practice by states or intergovernmental organizations in relation to the right to return, and suggests some general principles we should take into account when venturing into the field of legal interpretation.
_
_
_Human rights law
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1948, sets out the guiding principles of the human rights movement. The rights and principles enshrined in the UDHR have been elaborated and codified in subsequent legally binding international human rights treaties, as well as in national constitutions and laws. The right to return is among these Afirst principles@; the UDHR states that: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.@[ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, art 13.] Although there is some controversy among scholars about the juridical status of the UDHR, no one questions its moral force. The governments represented at the first Aglobal conference@ on human rights, held in Iran in 1968, agreed that Athe Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community.@[ Proclamation of Teheran, Proclaimed by the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran on 13 May 1968, paragraph 2] Moreover, it is not contentious to say that at least some of provisions of the Declaration reflect norms that are binding on all States.[ Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2 , #702, p.167]
International treaties give force to the rights proclaimed in the UDHR. Becoming Aparty@ to international human rights treaties is one of the main means by which States accept legal obligations to promote and protect the rights enumerated in the treaty. One of the most important human rights treaties is the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It affirms the right to return, stating that: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.@[ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976. Article 12.4 ]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, art 13.
Proclamation of Teheran, Proclaimed by the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran on 13 May 1968, paragraph 2
Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2 , #702, p.167
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession
Technically speaking, the right to return to one=s own country is a component of the right to freedom of movement. It differs from other components of this right -- such as the right to leave any country including one=s own B in that the right to return cannot be subject to limitations because of “national security, public order , public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.”[ Ib. Article 12.3] The right to return is Aderogable@, meaning that its enjoyment can be partially suspended in cases in which there is a Apublic emergency which threatens the life of the nation@. However, for this Aderogation@ to be legitimate, it cannot go beyond what is Astrictly required by the exigencies of the situation@, and the measures taken by the State to resolve the situation cannot be Ainconsistent with their other obligations under international law” or Ainvolve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.@[ Ib. Article 4.1] Briefly, under international human rights law, the right to return to one=s own country is a very strong right which accepts few qualifiers. Without suggesting a hierarchy of different human rights, one could say that in the ICCPR the right to return is Aweaker@ than the right to be free from torture, which cannot be derogated from even under circumstances that threaten the life of a nation,[ Other rights and guarantees in the ICCPR, which cannot be derogated from are: the right to live, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of detention for debts, the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws, the recognition of legal personality and the freedom of though and conscience] but it is Astronger@ than freedom of expression, which can be limited for reasons of national security, the rights and freedoms of others, etc.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is another treaty that establishes legal obligations for the States parties. It says: “In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to¼ guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: (d) Other civil rights, in particular: ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country.” [ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 entry into force 4 January 1969. Art 5 (d) (I)]
Israel is a State party to both of these treaties.[ Israel ratified the ICCPR and the ICESCR on October 3 1991 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on January 3 1979.]
_
In becoming parties to a human rights treaty, States pledge to cooperate with the bodies that monitor the implementation of the treaty. The treaties mentioned above created bodies specifically mandated to monitor state compliance with their provisions. These bodies are the Human Rights Committee (HRC) for the ICCPR and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for the respective Convention. Each Committee is composed of independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, and who are representative of different legal systems and traditions. The treaty bodies report annually to the UN General Assembly but they do not take specific instructions from any UN body or country. Under the treaties, States parties submit regular reports explaining what they have done to give effect to the rights recognized in the treaty and to guarantee the enjoyment of these rights to the people under their jurisdiction. These reports are examined by the treaty bodies in public meetings, and at the end of the examination the committees issue their Concluding Observations, where they express their concerns and make recommendations. The committees also issue General Comments that are not addressed to any particular government. The General Comments are used by the treaty bodies to interpret and clarify the meaning and content of the treaties, when necessary. The General Comments are also a useful means of establishing jurisprudence and are agreed by consensus by the members of the monitoring bodies. The role of the treaty monitoring bodies as guardians of their respective covenants is not in doubt.
Through its General Comment 27, the Human Rights Committee has given authoritative interpretation to the language of Art 12.4 of the ICCPR, which spells out the right to return. The HRC says: “The right to return is of the utmost importance for refugees seeking voluntary repatriation.” In relation to disputed territories or territories that have changed hands the General Comment includes unambiguous language; it says that individuals have the right to return to their own country even when their “country of nationality has been incorporated to another national entity whose nationality is being denied to them.”
The General Comment also explains the meaning of the expression "his own country" and gives examples of who is entitled to return to “his own country.” The HRC states that the idea of “his own country” “is broader than the concept ‘country of his nationality’. It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien.” It has been questioned whether the descendants of those who were originally expelled or fled Palestine in 1948 or 1967 also have this right. On this theme, General Comment 27 says that the wording of art 12.4 “may also entitle a person to come to the country for the first time if he or she was born outside the country (for example, if that country is the person's State of nationality).”[ Freedom of movement (Art.12) : 02/11/99. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, CCPR General comment 27 paras 19 and 20.]
The position adopted by the Human Rights Committee follows the well established concept that lasting connections between individuals and territory may well exist independently of the formal determination of nationality (or lack thereof) held by the individuals and even if those affected had never before been in a particular territory. Among the criteria which should be taken into account when determining whether or not an individual is a “mere alien” in relation to a given country are: language, religion, lasting residence, and race, as well the origin of the individual’s ancestors. The idea of the “genuine and effective links” between an individual and a country was first established by the International Court of Justice in the landmark Nottebohm case. These links are based on “a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interest and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties”, and are constituted by factors such as “the habitual residence of the individual concerned but also the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc.”[ International Court of Justice, Nottembohm case (Second Phase), Judgment of 6 April 1955]
by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976. Article 12.4
Ib. Article 12.3
Ib. Article 4.1
Other rights and guarantees in the ICCPR, which cannot be derogated from are: the right to live, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of detention for debts, the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws, the recognition of legal personality and the freedom of though and conscience
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 entry into force 4 January 1969. Art 5 (d) (I)
Israel ratified the ICCPR and the ICESCR on October 3 1991 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on January 3 1979.
There is more shira, but that should do it.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (2)
Ben Dror Yemini wrote:
The European Court Ruling against Greek Cypriot right-of-return....
http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/2010/03/ecthr-rules-on-right-of-return-of-greek.html
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)What I see is someone who does not read what she posts. You seem to imagine some material
to be strong support, that it possesses bells and whistles attractive to you, coming to your defense.
Nothing could be further from the truth, at least from what I've seen you post.
You did the same in another thread you abandoned just two days ago. The OP was questioning
why the ISRAELI leaders had no expression of outrage regarding Abbas. You misconstrued
the authors intent and your posts about it made no sense whatsoever.
Your source here is a journalist, for one thing. A gentleman who: He argues that "anti-Zionism is politically correct anti-Semitism" ( wiki)
The rest of that blog spot is of no substance, seriously..you need to read first..then post.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. It is a fact that UNGA resolutions like 194 are recommendations, non-binding, and not International Law.
2. That European court decision establishes precedent showing that neither Greek Cypriots or Palestinians have automatic, unqualified RoR to their ancestral land.
You've got nothing.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)No on the second, you'd know that if you had actually read what I posted..signatories
of the Israeli government..see apt sections.
Your opinion is with spectacular contempt for human rights..big difference than what becomes
a political battle. You are devoid of appreciating each.
shira
(30,109 posts)Do they have some spectacular contempt for human rights?
Obviously, they missed the memo WRT automatic, unqualified RoR according to "International Law".
You should tell them they're wrong & that you disagree with their decision.
Let me know how that goes.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Among the other words, try and concentrate on the first eight, in bold for you.
But do hold close your " journalist's" opinion, Ben Dror Yemini...take it to court if you like.
The actual ruling:
THE EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
THE CYPRUS PROPERTY ISSUE:
CHARTING A WAY FORWARD
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpDocuments%29/0E4618FB838109CCC125792E0043197D/$file/Cyprus+ECtHR.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)....that for some reason doesn't apply elsewhere.
What International Law are they following that's different for everyone else in the world?
Does each continent follow a different set of International Law?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)not agree with it any longer?
The opinion of Human Rights Watch, as it pertains internationally, that is what I posted
for you..you rejected.
Now you're rejecting your own OP's application of the particular relevance of this ruling
to the Palestinians? That is rich..why are you laughing?
Let's make this easier for you. This is the Israeli government's position:
For more than fifty years, Israel has based its refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to
exercise their right of return on a number of key arguments. These include: the lack of
physical space, the desire to maintain a demographic Jewish majority, state security,
and international law. This Brief addresses the right of return in international law.[1]
While supporters of the Israeli position try to attack the right of return as articulated in
General Assembly Resolution 194(III)[2] – for example, by attempting to argue that
the right of return is not mandatory, that it does not apply to mass groups and that it is
only reserved for “nationals” of Israel - these claims, in fact, have no basis in
international law.
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpDocuments%29/63635181C7F4F474C12574AD0040D307/$file/Brief-No.8.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)...that denied RoR to people who allegedly have this "automatic, unqualified right according to International Law".
That ruling which denies RoR, while also complying with International Law, is a fact & not opinion.
I can only surmise you're having cognitive dissonance issues here.
Either International Law is what you believe it is in your opinion, or it is not and the ECHR made an illegal, inhumane verdict. Which is it? Did they screw the Greek Cypriots over on their RoR? How do you see the case? I see it as evidence RoR is not an automatic, unqualified right to anyone, whether Cypriots or Palestinians. Not even Germans expelled from the Sudetenland have an open-and-shut case for RoR. They've tried to no avail.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)your own OP's opinion of it's reach beyond Europe. It is you that believes it's an open and shut case
in your previous statements..they ( Palestinians) have no right of return.
Where is the legal case made for this, other than your brief blog spot's interpretation?
Under international law, I have already posted two legal sources, you have the explanations.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)There's a ludicrous perception held by some that international law or UN resolutions do not apply to certain nations of the Levant; who are intent on colonizing other people's land.
shira
(30,109 posts)And was justice served by the European Court of Human Rights?
Or do they not know how to apply your concept of International Law?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)How about if you post to the exact meaning, interpretation, links, or questions that you have regarding Cyprus (sp), the UN actions and international law.
Be specific as to your question(s).
shira
(30,109 posts)...would be applied differently in Europe than elsewhere.
You're using that line as an excuse to avoid the very obvious reality that RoR (as you see it) is not guaranteed unconditionally by International Law.
You've got nothing. But then, you knew that already. It's time you admit it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of support you posted and your subsequent posts make that clear.
Keep in mind your claim is, the Palestinians have not right to return, period.
What happened, you run out of OP's from your " journalist " ?
shira
(30,109 posts)If Palestinians have a RoR how do you explain the European Court of HR decision WRT Cyprus?
If you're just going to deflect and play more games, don't bother answering.
Another deflection will go to prove w/o question that you know very well there's no guaranteed RoR for any people.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You have not addressed the two legal opinions submitted to you.
I am sure one reason is b/c you have not read them and do not intend to.
shira
(30,109 posts)And that won't stop you from peddling more lies about IHL guaranteeing RoR without qualification.
=====
And the OP I posted is fine. European Court decisions apply to Europe, not elsewhere. However, that court must comply with IHL. It's obvious they did.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)support your claim that the Palestinians do not have a right to return, period.?
Because your journalist says so? How does this ruling determine right of return
for the Palestinians..you claim they have no right...none.
The legal precedent is all set, according to you...it is a done deal, eh?
I have information for you, there are exceptions and they rest in the two briefs,
which you refuse to read...not surprising.
Don't tax yourself shira, just repeat the misrepresentation, the Palestinians have
no right to return. Makes posting here so much easier for you.
shira
(30,109 posts)The ECHR ruling was:
1. This clearly applies to I/P and even greater based on the passage of more time.
2. Also, the Turks invaded Cyprus nearly 40 years ago. They were the aggressor but the ECHR ruled against RoR. OTOH, the Palestinians were the aggressor in 1948 starting a civil war. Their claims collectively are weaker than those of the Greek Cypriots.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You: OTOH, the Palestinians were the aggressor in 1948 starting a civil war. Their claims collectively are weaker than those of the Greek Cypriots.
Back to your other bogus claim:
Again, the ruling supports your claim the Palestinians have no right to return, correct? Answer
the question please..since you refuse to read the legal briefs presented for you earlier.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Greeks therefore have a stronger claim to RoR than Palestinians who were the aggressor starting the 1948 civil war that preceded the bigger one months later. The Palestinians would have a stronger case if they could show Israel initiated a war that led to their refugee status. They would at least be on more equal footing with the Greek Cypriots. As it is, the Greek Cypriots have no RoR. The Palestinians have an even weaker case than the Greeks do.
What's difficult about this?
========
To answer you, the Palestinians have no collective RoR and individually they have no absolute, unconditional RoR either.
The concept of RoR according to Hamas and the PLO is what you also believe in. THAT concept of RoR simply does not exist.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're a parrot for all misinformation and poorly articulated as well...meaning
you do it very poorly.
Finally, you're at least acknowledging that it is your interpretation, the ruling is not
how you came to the conclusions you have stated on the onset nor at the end.
shira
(30,109 posts)You didn't know that?
As far as articulation, it seems you confuse that with logic and reasoning. Those aren't your strong points, are they?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)each day..you meant to say.
Continued good luck with that, your transparency page reflects your in-depth analysis success
quite well.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)how this negates any right of return, which is your claim.
The UN, human rights groups who reaffirm they do have a right must all be wrong and devoid of
any sense of international law..hmm.
shira
(30,109 posts)The ECHR did not rule RoR doesn't exist, but that it's not as automatic as you say it is.
Your concept of RoR (that it is absolute, unqualified, and guaranteed) is what is non-existant.
It's not what you believe it to be.
You also believe it's a collective right when it's not.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the Palestinians do not have a right to return, period.
I'd like to know how you imagine this to be true..must be that journalist
buddy of yours.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)politically, to insist the Palestinians have no right to return and there is no basis
in international law to support them is a complete distortion of the truth.
It is duly noted that you continue to ignore information presented to you.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's that Shira regards some humans as being less-human than others.
Subtle difference, but it is a difference.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Do they regard Greek Cypriots as less-human than others?
Because if not, then try explaining their verdict WRT Greeks having no RoR.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)see for example:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loizidou_v._Turkey
shira
(30,109 posts)RoR is not guaranteed automatically and w/o qualification by IHL.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Which is bullshit.
shira
(30,109 posts)That concept of RoR does not exist and is certainly not IHL.
Cary
(11,746 posts)And if Palestinian is a nationality it arose in the 20th Century.
So what Palestinians have a right to return to which Palestine?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)SHIRA
WAT R U DOIN
SHIRA
STAHP.
shira
(30,109 posts)...WRT Greek Cypriots?
Compensation, sure. But not return. Why?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Same reason Israel had a policy of genocide denial with regard to Armenians, in order to keep Turkey buddy-buddy.
You're hinging on the notion that a court is always going to make the correct ruling. I'd suggest you pick up a history book and read up on Dred Scott. It might do you some good besides.
zellie
(437 posts)Seems a little projection going on there.
Notice how arab Israelis freak out at any mention of moving to a future Palestinian state?
Yes, all they have now is ...
Able to vote....check
Freedom of speech... Check
Educational opportunities..check
Freedom of religion... Check
Freedom of the press...check
Rule of law.... Check
Yep, bet they can't wait to move to the future Palestinian state.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)zellie
(437 posts)Great person, great Israeli
Great human being
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)tthe apartheis is not in Israel it is in the Palestinian territory that is under Israeli Military occupation and it is committed against those that are not Israeli citizens but Palestinians who live in those territories do not have Israeli citizenship and where their Israeli military rulers have literally 2 sets of laws one for Israeli citizens and one for Palestinians
zellie
(437 posts)Certainly it's not gaza where there are no Israelis except when Israel has had enough of those terror rockets.
As for the WB, it's shame Arafat and Abbas didn't take the multitude of offers by the Israelis. Actually since the WB has stopped sending 13 and 14 year old suicide bombers, they have actually improved their lives financially . Now all Abbas has to do is stop the antisemitism , declare Israel is a sovereign country by renouncing any ridiculous RoR and sit down with Israel and things can get a whole lot better for his people.
Or he can stay his course and leave his country in the same predicament . The choice is his .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts).for that the Palestinian got a whole 18% of the West Bank to call their own, except for when the Israeli mi9litary decides differently guess they are not grateful enough huh?
and the nerve of those Palestinians wanting to their own homes back whenever will they learn huh?
14 year old suicide bombers hmmmm yes IDF has made that claim the video has been posted and reposted on youtube for 9 years ever since the kid was arrested so what did Israel do with this child?
shira
(30,109 posts)Demanding RoR is not recognizing 2 states for 2 people.
It's a path to more war.
You know that.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and as far as being the path to war who's going to start that war?
we heard the same about South Africa and the US when faced with change that scared the people who were used to being on top
and once again are you prescient? you seem to know what I am thinking or wish to put words in my mouth why do you insist on doing that?
as for RoR yes the Palestinians should be allowed that but how many are going to wish to live in what is a hostile foreign country?
shira
(30,109 posts)They're being held there against their will because they'll be collectively forced to return by Hamas, the PLO, and other Arab nations. That's why Israel's neighbors caged them up for over 60 years. It wasn't to give them individual choice once Israel allows for it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)with UN res 194 of 1948 that's why period and if Israel had complied 60 years ago the problem would have been solved then
shira
(30,109 posts)...and live in such a "hostile" state, as you wrote, then they shouldn't be in camps against their will. Certainly not for 60+ years. They want to go elsewhere, don't they?
So why haven't they chosen to go elsewhere over the past 6 decades? Why hasn't this been allowed?
================
And as I wrote to Jefferson above, a UNGA resolution is a recommendation and therefore non-binding. It's not International Law. And btw that's an absolute FACT, not opinion.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and there might be financial reasons other can not chose to do that Palestinians are not all as well monied as some here seem to believe
shira
(30,109 posts)You think most would choose to stay in refugee camps several more generations?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)bet yopu have some link proving 'they' don't right lets see wil it be PalWatch, MEMRI, CAMERA , Algemibner, PJ's Media, Stonegate Institute??????? can't hardly wait
shira
(30,109 posts)...that those who sanctimoniously invoke their RoR display the most utter contempt for the lives of these poor people.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)...the past 6 decades, and even more, why don't you seem to care that they've been in camps all that time wasting their lives?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I dunno, I give up. Where do you think they want to live, besides Israel?
zellie
(437 posts)The fact that the Palestinians are led by a bunch of ignoramuses who lead their people to misery based on hundreds of years of Jew hatred that they perpetuate thru their media , their mosques and their own words.
What a sad waste.
It's a shame will never know what could have been or should have been.
Instead they demand and demand and live a fantasy ... And blame anyone else but them selves when their fantasies aren't met.
As for that 14 year old little boy with a loaded suicide vest who was "bravely" sent by a bunch of deranged terrorists , I don't know. Last we saw him he was given an IDF coat to keep him warm .
Shame the Israeli haters will never get it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and what happened to that poor little 14 year old after he was given the coat was he returned to his parent? or was he amoung the hundreds of Palestinian children languishing in prisons in Israel ?
Do you REALLY think that one sentence in that letter 20 YEARS AGO wipes away all the antisemitism , intafada's and terrorism over the past 2 decades?
Maybe if they can say it again after these 2 decades AND this time actually mean it and live it (without al-taqulla ) , I will believe it.
Such a waste.
On edit... Or maybe the evidence speaks for itself. Maybe they just don't want peace. Like other Arab states , in order to keep power they blame Israel for all their misery and deflect their problems all on the Jews. It's a time honored tradition.
They should do some soul searching.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)could not have asked for a better reply, it says oh so much 
zellie
(437 posts)Not sure after these 20 years it means that much but I enjoyed listening to you.
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=466
...The Palestinian Authority paints a picture - both verbally and visually - of a world in which Israel does not exist. Children’s educational TV teaches that Palestine currently is a "state" (Arabic "dawla" = state) covering 27,000 sq. km - i.e., an area that includes all of Israel (the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip total only 6220 sq. km). Moreover, all Israel’s cities and infrastructure are referred to as "Palestinian": “Palestinian ports ... [are] Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, Eilat, Ashdod, and Gaza". [PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 1 2008.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)speaks volumes doesn't it? but the picture the PLO/PA painted for the world is one where the West Bank is Palestine I know that is not the narrative but that is the fact
shira
(30,109 posts)And there's nothing suggesting PMW is a rightwing outfit.
Itamar Marcus keeps politics out of it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)if fact I think they are of great assistance to this debate
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Israel's current leaders are on the wrong side of history. Their policies are wrong and their arrogance is wrong. We are doing the people of Israel no favors by supporting (or at the very least abetting) the theft of Palestinian territory and the treatment of Palestinians as lesser human beings.
Israelis deserve much better leaders, and Palestinians deserve their homeland within its pre-1967 borders. Anything less for either is simply not justice.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinians and their western "friends" rejected it flat-out.
They see all Israeli governments the same way. The most leftwing are no better than the most rightwing leadership. All Zionists. All wrong 24-7.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No Abbas did not accept that "fair" deal. Would you give up a third of our country, including its Capital, to a foreign occupier?
shira
(30,109 posts)...into one big Palestine so that 1/3 of the Palestinians' land won't be lost.
Wonderful.
You've proven my point. A rightwing Zionist Israeli leader is no better than a leftwing leader.
Why didn't you originally say that all Israel's leaders are illegitimate and on the wrong side of history, rather than pretending it's only the rightwing ones who are?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Israel will never simply "surrender," nor should she. If that were to somehow happen, it would be about the worst possible outcome for this situation. I'm sure you weren't even serious when you mentioned it.
That being said, though, to ask the Palestinians to accept less than the return of their whole country (as the rest of the World sees it, that means 1967 borders) is also rather fantastical. There are, of course, many side issues of great importance to one or both sides of the debate, but I think intact, 1967 borders for the State of Palestine is a minimum starting position.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Whether Israel officially enters the category inhabited by Jim Crow and PW Botha under Netanyahu or his successors, it's a done deal. The people of Israel itself make it inevitable--avoiding Apartheid requires sacrifices they are not capable of making.