Palestinians ask UN: Set 2016 as deadline for ending Israeli occupation

[Jefferson23]

Draft resolution calls for intensified efforts to reach 'just resolution' of Jerusalem's status as the capital of two states, and of the Palestinian refugee problem.

By Edith M. Lederer Oct. 1, 2014 | 8:30 PM

AP - The Palestinians are asking the UN Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, in a new push to achieve independence.

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the UN General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.

The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states - "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The draft calls for intensified efforts, including through negotiations, to reach a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and "a just resolution" of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and of the Palestinian refugee problem.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.618701

[oberliner]

1. Would the one-state solution folks oppose this?

It would solidify the international community as standing behind two states.

[Jefferson23]

3. I have no idea. n/t

[Scootaloo]

4. The one-state position isn't an opposition to two states, Oberliner

Rather, it's an acknowledgement that the two-state solution is increasingly unlikely, and that this really only leaves the one (literally) option.

A better question is, do you believe there's the slightest chance that this resolution will pass the UNGA, be accepted by the security council, and then accepted by Israel?

[oberliner]

5. For some it is

See this piece:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/jps.2011.XL.2.62?uid=25026&uid=3739576&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=67&uid=25024&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21104801307593

Or this:

Palestinian, Israeli scholars to advance one-state solution in London

http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinian-israeli-scholars-advance-one-state-solution-london/7212

I believe this resolution will definitely pass the UNGA by quite a wide margin.

[Scootaloo]

9. Both of those back up what I just said

The first presents it as an alternative to a clearly failing drive towards a two-state plan; the second does likewise, while criticizing the myopia that causes people to cling to a ship that is clearly sinking.

And maybe it will pass the General assembly. I'm not so certain, plenty of votes are for sale in that body. And hten it goes to the security council. What happens then? even if we get a huge surprise an the US supports or even just abstains... can we count on israel to follow through?

[oberliner]

14. Neither of them do

They both express the exact opposite. Namely that a one-state solution is preferable to a two-state solution. The Jstor piece even directly addresses the idea that even were the two-state solution feasible, a one-state one would be better. Did you actually pay to purchase the entire piece or did you just read the free preview portion?

In any case, I encourage you to consider supporting the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.geneva-accord.org

[Scootaloo]

15. I think you need better reading glasses

Also, you need a link that works. And I believe you and I have been over the Geneva Initiative before. And what it boils down to is this...

if you really, honestly think the Geneva Initiative is the "last best chance" or whatever... then buddy you might as well come on over to the one-state arguments. 'Cause Israel has been rejecting this idea from day one and has not budged one inch on that refusal. And I really doubt that it is going to ever do so.

The Israeli government wants one state between the river and the sea. The Israeli people ho elect this government want one state between the river and the sea. What neither wants are the Palestinian people.

[Israeli]

16. oberliner !!

check out your link to the official website .......

says it all really

[Israeli]

17. The Geneva Initiative is as dead as Oslo oberliner....

Where is Yossi Beilin today ??

You are living in a time warp .

Here is who is in charge today and most likely tomorrow even more so ....

Bennett slams Netanyahu's commitment to 2-state solution

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4576974,00.html

You see Meretz overtaking Bennett and Co. next elections ???????????

They will probably get more votes than Tzipi Livni's now defunct party ....but thats not saying much .

[hack89]

2. The refugee issue will solve itself when there is a Palestinian state

they can live there.

Looking at a map, it is hard to see how you can connect Gaza and the West Bank in a meaningful way. Are they basically talking about enough land to build a connecting highway?

[DanTex]

6. I don't think the refugees themselves will see that as an acceptable solution. nt

[hack89]

7. It would be best if they were granted citizenship in the countries where they were born

Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

But the Arab countries are opposed to that for some reason.

Full RoR is an impossibility - financial reparations for those still alive from 1948 is the best they will get. That and Israeli agreeing to not pursue reparations for all the Jews forced out of Arab countries.

[DanTex]

8. At the same time, anything less than full RoR is also "an impossibility."

Because that would mean validating the violent eviction from and subsequent theft of the homes of hundreds of thousands of people.

One of the many things that makes the I/P conflict so hard to resolve.

[hack89]

11. It is the reality of the situation

Full RoR is the end of the Jewish state. National suicide by Israel is not in the cards

[DanTex]

12. The reality is the strong oppress the weak. Same as it ever was.

[hack89]

13. Perhaps

I confess I can't see a solution that will please everyone.

[shira]

52. Yes, the strong Arab leadership of the region has oppressed weak Palestinians....

Consigning them and several generations of Palestinians to miserable lives in refugee camps, lacking the rights of citizens also born in those countries. A terrible injustice you should be opposed to.

[DanTex]

55. Mainly Israel, after all, Israel created the refugees and stole their homes to begin with.

[shira]

57. Arabs started a war and there were consequences...

Like in any war. There were 10's of millions of refugees during the WW2 era. All were assimilated in different countries except one population that was destined to remain refugees for as long as it took. You support that inhumane policy.

Refugees throughout the Arab world should've been given a choice early on to become citizens of their states. Their children CERTAINLY should have, like any other refugees. Do you agree or disagree?

The problem is that no one from your camp advocates giving refugees a choice. They all support keeping refugees in miserable conditions, pretending it's best for them.

[DanTex]

59. "consequences". That's a creative euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

It's almost frightening how easily you absolve Israel of responsibility for their war crimes and blame them all on someone else.

[shira]

64. The Jews were ethnically cleansed as well during that time period...

I don't see you or yours losing any sleep due to that war crime. They didn't declare war on their leaders throughout the mideast. Are you even aware that more Jews than Palestinians suffered their own Nakba?

Probably not. Nor would you care.

There were millions of people caught up in population transfers during the WW2 era. None claim a RoR, nor will they get it. The simple reason is that it would re-open past conflicts and lead to mass bloodshed. Apparently, your warped sense of justice would call for exactly that in I/P. Most refugees are extremely hostile towards Israel. Israel would be nuts to add 5M potentially hostile enemies to their existing population of 8M. Israel's enemies of course want the conflict to continue so they insist on RoR. A warmonger's dream.

[DanTex]

68. Aha. The "just forget it" argument. Odd how the Palestinians are always the ones who you

want to just forget things.

Your last paragraph is very telling. On one hand, you think that the Zionist colonization and ethnic cleansing is justified because Palestine is the "ancient homeland" of the Jews, a link that is basically based on religion and folklore. Colonizing Palestine, kicking out the native Palestinians, this is the greatest thing in the history of Judaism.

On the other hand, here we have Palestinians who actually lived in what is now Israel, and had their homes stolen, and you want them to just forget about it and go live somewhere else. No reason to "re-open past conflicts" just because your home was stolen. Unless, of course, the conflicts you want to re-open are 2000 years old. In that case, ethnically cleanse to your heart's content.

[sabbat hunter]

66. Israel did not create all the refugees

about 1/3rd fled due to being in a war zone (both sides at fault), 1/3rd fled due to being forced out by Israeli forces and the last 1/3rd left due to actions and words of arab commanders on the ground..

[shira]

67. Facts don't matter to Israel's most hostile critics. They never did matter. n/t

[DanTex]

70. Correct, but it did steal all of their homes.

The exact proportions are subject to intense debate, and we'll probably never know exactly how many fall into either category. But after the conflict, Israel decided that none of them would get to return to their homes.

[Shaktimaan]

20. Would it?

Why?

Even so, let's say you're right and it does validate the nakba. Why does that make it an impossible request if the end result would be a sovereign Palestinian state? Particularly considering that it's not a request Israel can reasonably be expected to accept, as it would mean the end of their own state. It's not going to happen regardless. So what is the point of insisting upon a demand over its principle, if it prevents the achievement of a far greater goal?

[DanTex]

23. I mean a moral "impossibility", not a practical one.

This is from the point of view of the Palestinian refugees. The problem is that we are faced with two impossibilities. One is denying the RoR of people whose homes were stolen. The other is the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Which presents a stronger argument? The right of people to not have their homes stolen, or the ethnic composition of Israel?

I agree that RoR isn't going to happen regardless -- in reality the strong impose their will on the weak, so the refugees are going to have to accept some kind of compromise.

But that doesn't settle the moral argument.

As a thought experiment, what if the nakba was yesterday rather than 70ish years ago? Or even, what if the nakba hadn't happened yet: could Israel possibly justify evicting a large number of Arabs in order to become a Jewish-majority state? I don't think so.

Here's another thought. What if Israel ceded some land, so the border would lie somewhere between the original 1947 UN plan and the 1948 borders? The refugees would get a partial RoR, to the land that Israel just ceded. There would have to be a kind of "reverse nakba" whereby the Jews living in the newly ceded land have to move to new-Israel. Of course this won't happen, and one of the arguments against it would be uprooting all the Israelis that would have to move. But, if we're adopting the premise that uprooting people from their homes and not letting them return is of lesser significance than the ethnic composition of Israel, shouldn't something like this be part of the discussion?

[Scootaloo]

27. I keep hearing "it would end Israel!"

But I never see a detailed explanation of how, exactly, it would spell such doom. Would Israel fall into the sea? be struck with nation-wide leprosy/ Would god himself just send a wave of fire to obliterate it? Maybe israel would just nuke itself or something? What's going on there that would result in israel's apparent annihilation?

[Mosby]

31. where are 5 million plus refugees going to live exactly?

Where are they going to get money for rents and mortgages?

Where are they going to work and who is going to support all of them until they are self sufficient?

It's economically and logistically impossible for a nation of 8 million to absorb 5-6 million people and anyone who supports full RoR is an extremist who wants the conflict to go on forever.

[Scootaloo]

42. Is that your final answer?

Indeed, all 5 million refugees, showing up all at once and taking a place at the table would be disastrous, economically, and certainly upsetting socially.

of course, your position - the "ISRAEL IS DOOOOMED!" howling - is utterly dependant on this premise, of everyone showing up all at once, flooding into Israe;l with nothing more than a wave and a smack on the ass.

It is also, rather obviously, a fucking ridiculous assumption to make.

First off, a lot of those five million people might just decide they'd rather stay wherever the hell they are now. Once presented with the real option to "go home," it can very suddenly look like a pretty huge fucking leap of faith. Or maybe they're just happy where they are. or like Jewish refugees in 1946, they just don't want to settle next door to the people who tried their level best to purge them. Any number of things.

Second, to assume it happens all in one fell swoop is just silly. It would have to be a gradual thing, just for the simple logistics of it all. it's a lot of people. That many people need management. Management takes time and resources. One can easily imagine a graded system where survivors of the 1948 diaspora are given priority, then refugees created between then and 1967, then the refugees of 1967, so on and so forth, with lowered priority for next-generation refugees, barring dependents, spouses, or caregivers. Likely also a system of priority for the people residing in refugee camps in the region, where they are favored over those who reside in first-world nations; surely an aged resident of Burj el-Shemali is more urgent than a well-to-do gentleman living in Los angeles, hmm?

Third, Israel still has a say in who comes in and who doesn't. That means, it combs over each returnee applicant, and bars those it feels are a security risk or otherwise harmful. of course this will have to be in good faith, rather than "Palestinians are all harmful, no one comes in," yes?

The "doomsday" scenario you conjure is ludicrous. and wholly a fevered imagining.

[Mosby]

49. there are a myriad of reasons why full RoR won't work, I'm offering some practical ones

I think the vast majority of the "refugees" being held in camps, including the ones in the west bank would definitely prefer to live in Israel so we are talking about millions of people. With the numbers so high it wouldn't matter if the time frame was a year or ten years, there is no possible way the Israeli economy could grow sufficiently to accommodate millions of largely uneducated workers, most of them would have to receive assistance for decades and live in tent cities or something similar considering the price of housing.

[Scootaloo]

50. No, you're offering imaginary ones based off impractical fantasy

You're trying to defend the premise that "right of return will destroy Israel." The trouble is, there's no factual basis for this claim, so you basically have to make up worst-case scenarios that would never actually happen.

[shira]

53. You're the one making up imaginary stuff here...

Who says millions of Palestinians wouldn't want to go to Israel if offered the opportunity? They're still refugees 70 years later for a reason. That reason is to force them to go to Israel for demographic reasons. They have no choice. If they had a real choice, they should've decided decades ago and we'd know the exact number NOW wanting to go to Israel. Their leaders wouldn't let them choose. They still won't. Refugees are to be used as a demographic weapon. That's their purpose.

You should be advocating Palestinian refugee choice NOW so that they can get on with their lives rather than being consigned to decades of more misery in camps. Giving them a choice now would be the humane thing to do, but you'd be against it - correct?

You're also assuming 5 million Palestinians would just love to live in a free, liberal democratic state, no sharia law, etc. Only 10% of Palestinians support one secular state. Not even 1% of Israeli Jews favor that. Your solution is for all the natives there to be forced against their will to accept your colonialist imposed solution. You're more colonial than those you accuse of being colonial.

[shira]

51. There's no such thing as 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation refugees....

....born in a different country but still claiming to be refugees. Only the original refugees have a case.

All Arab states in the region decided not to grant citizenship to children of Palestinians born in their countries. They did this deliberately, only to the Palestinians. It's a terrible crime, perpetrated over decades. There are hardly more than 30-40,000 original refugees left. The other 4-5 million would not be considered refugees in any other situation other than I/P. When you call for full RoR, you're not calling for justice. You're helping to perpetuate a terrible injustice and that's nothing to be proud of.

[DanTex]

54. Yes, the Israeli strategy: steal people's homes, then wait for them to die, and insist that there is

"no such thing" as a second generation refugee. We all get it. The only surprise is that there are actually people who buy that propaganda.

[shira]

56. Your strategy may be to use Palestinians as political pawns....

...but Israel has already tried to make a deal on accepting a lot of refugees. See the Lausanne conference for more details. Israel also accepted the Clinton Parameters which would have offered over 35 billion USD in compensation for refugees.

The Arab league keeping refugees in miserable camps for 7 decades is the true crime here, and the sad fact is that you and your fellow "pro-Palestinian" colleagues prefer it that way. Their lives only have meaning to you all when Israel is the target.

[DanTex]

60. I didn't realize that I had a strategy. I'm an observer.

Hmm, Lausanne conference:

The United States criticized Israel for its territorial ambitions and its refusal to allow the return of the Arab refugees, but Israel remained persistent in its rejection of UN Resolutions 181 and 194.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference_of_1949

Yet another think you say turns out to be false. I'm shocked!

[shira]

61. Sure you are. I want to see you state clearly....

...that you believe it was wrong for the Arab League and UN to keep refugees and their descendants homeless and in camps the past 7 decades, without giving them the choice other refugees and their descendants have had in every other situation worldwide since WW2.

Can you do it?

[DanTex]

63. I'd like to see you state clearly that the Nakba was ethnic cleansing. Can you do it?

[shira]

65. Of course it was ethnic cleansing. Your turn. Can you do it? n/t

[DanTex]

69. Sure. The Arab countries should me more accommodating of the refugees.

Both sides are wrong. It happens a lot in the I/P conflict.

[shira]

62. Ben Gurion's leftwing socialist party was correct...

The Arab league demanded refugee return, compensation, and Israel forfeiting land it won at war while refusing to make peace with Israel. Wow, how could Israel refuse that? No one sane would have.

Israel's gov't at that time was significantly more leftwing than America's.

Israel still offered to take in b/w 100-200K refugees and negotiate land despite being threatened with annihilation just a few years after the Holocaust. No other nation would have done that...

[Scootaloo]

10. Actually, just one

Every Arab host state - like every other refugee host state around the world - has offers of citizenship for their refugee populations.

The sole exception is Lebanon. This is because Lebanon has about the stupidest government structure imaginable. You know how the not-at-all-racist Israel supporters insist allowing Palestinain refugees from Israel back into israel will "destroy Israel"? Right well, Lebanon actually is saddled with a government that is determined by ethnic and religious quotas, and it's such a goddamned mess that the nation hasn't conducted a census since it achieved independence. In 1943. because even the slightest demographic change would require a near-total overhaul of the government. And if you've been paying any attention at all to lebanon i nthe last 30 years, you might be able to understand their reluctance in doing anything with their government.

yeah, the British just split up and glued together former holdings to cause chaos... France did... that. Suck it, Queen Lizzy, France is the champion of royally fucking former colonies!

i guess we could count Kuwait as another exception, given their illegal expulsion of Palestinians after the Gulf War. But of course the Us was too busy snogging its oil sheik buddies to worry too much about that gross violation of human rights. Didn't hear israel crying foul about it, either.

Anyway. it is not up to the violating nation to determine what rights the refugees it created have or don't have.

[Shaktimaan]

19. Really?

Every Arab host state - like every other refugee host state around the world - has offers of citizenship for their refugee populations.

That may be true, but the real exception is wrt Palestinian refugees, who aren't eligible for citizenship in ANY Arab states except for Jordan. It should be noted that Jordan didn't hesitate to strip hundreds of thousands of these Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship in 1988, effectively leaving them stateless.

The only other state to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees would be Israel itself, of course, for the refugees it allowed to return following the war in 48. Israel also granted citizenship to the Jewish refugees of Arab states who were cleansed in the decades following Israel's creation, as well as the Jewish refugees from Europe following WWII. It seems like the only state expected to do so wet refugees from any of these wars in fact.

Anyway. it is not up to the violating nation to determine what rights the refugees it created have or don't have.

Neither does it really matter. Even in the event that a Palestinian right of return was ruled valid by a court empowered to make such a call, such rights consistently submit to the far greater rights which accompany sovereignty. As in the right of every sovereign state to determine their own rules regarding citizenship.

[Scootaloo]

21. Wait what?

I say every Arab state offers citizenship to their refugees.

You agree.

Then you disagree.

Man, get lost. I don't have time for these doubletalk shenanigans. Go back to screaming at youtubers or whatever it is that consumes your time.

[King_David]

22. Actually he is right as usual you just don't understand the issues,

Only Jordan has given their Palestinian population citizenship ( and recently retracted a lot of it)

Telling someone to "get lost "as you did is pretty revealing strategy when your clueless in your argument and clearly been shown to be so.

[Scootaloo]

26. See my reply to hack, just below

I suggest you learn about refugee rights and statuses, before claiming someone "doesn't understand the issues."

[hack89]

24. With the exception of Palestinian refugees

that's what he said. Do you agree with that statement?

[Scootaloo]

25. Nope. It's a false statement, With the exceptions of Kuwait and Lebanon

Every Arab state has offered citizenship to their refugees, barring those two exceptions. That includes Palestinian refugees as they are, obviously, refugees. Syria. Egypt. the Maghreb states. Saudi Arabia. Iraq. Jordan. Yemen. The UAE. Qatar. Oman. All of them are as open to citizenship for Palestinians as they are to citizenship for any other refugee population. No different than the United States, France, Argentina, etc. As with any refugee population though, it is up to the individual refugee to decide whether or not they want to seek citizenship in their host state. It cannot be mandated or imposed upon them.

[King_David]

28. As usual you clueless in this and pretend that you know what's going on here , I'll help you :

An estimated 240,000 Palestinians are living in Saudi Arabia. They are not allowed to hold or even apply for Saudi citizenship, because of Arab League instructions barring the Arab states from granting them citizenship; the only other alternative for them is to marry a Saudi national. Palestinians are the sole foreign group that cannot benefit from a 2004 law passed by Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers, which entitles expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship.[58]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee


You really never knew this ? And yet post with such confidence ?

LOL

[hack89]

29. No - the Protocol on the Treatment of Palestinian Refugees (Casablanca Protocol)

passed by the Arab League in 1965 treats Palestinians differently. Here, for example in Saudi Arabia:

But Al-Watan Arabic daily reported that the naturalization law would not be applicable to Palestinians living in the Kingdom as the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.

Diplomatic sources have estimated the number of Palestinians in the Kingdom at about 500,000. There are large concentrations of Palestinians in the country’s western, central, eastern and northern provinces.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070404085820/http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=53213&d=21&m=10&y=2004

In Egypt, they finally decided to give citizenship to Palestinians with Egyptian mothers only:

The official said that the Egyptian Interior Ministry had been instructed to give Egyptian citizenship to all Palestinians who were born to Egyptian mothers

Until recently, Egypt, like most Arab countries, had refused to grant citizenship to Palestinians in accordance with an Arab League resolution dating back to 1965.

According to the resolution, “Palestinians who are residing in the Arab countries are given, upon their request, valid travel documents. The concerned [Arab] authorities must, wherever they be, issue these documents or renew them without delay.”

The Arab countries have justified their refusal to grant citizenship to Palestinians by arguing that they wish to protect the Palestinian identity and ensure their return to their original homes inside Israel

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Egypt-grants-citizenship-to-50000-Palestinians

Syria bars citizen rights to Palestinians:

Palestinians in Syria are people of Palestinian origin, most of whom have been residing in Syria after they were expelled and displaced from their homeland in in the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Unlike any other neighboring country, Jordan granted Palestinian refugees full citizenship rights. Palestinians enjoy the same rights as the Syrian population, barring citizenship rights

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

They were only given residency permits in Iraq:

Iraq is not a signatory of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the protection of refugees. Palestinians were never awarded official status by the Iraqi authorities, but were given a degree of protection and assistance by the Iraqi government, guided by the Casablanca Protocol of the League of Arab States in 1965.[10] During Saddam Hussein’s rule, Palestinians received by and large equitable treatment. They were granted residency permits, full access to government services including healthcare and education, and were also permitted to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Iraq#Governmental_policies

[Scootaloo]

32. You're misrepresenting

Yes, the refugees are treated as residents rather than citizens. That's because all refugees are residents rahter than citizens. Refugees from everywhere, living wherever, are by definition non-citizen residents of their host states. A palestinian in jeddah and a Somali in seattle are the same, in this regard - both are residents of their host states, neither are citizens of theirhost states; one is a Palestinian national, the other is a somali national.

And either may seek to become a citizen of their host state (and thereby shed their refugee status) in accordance with the laws of their host state's existing path to gaining citizenship. For instance, Dave brings this up;

An estimated 240,000 Palestinians are living in Saudi Arabia. They are not allowed to hold or even apply for Saudi citizenship, because of Arab League instructions barring the Arab states from granting them citizenship; the only other alternative for them is to marry a Saudi national.

What the Wikipedia article doesn't mention - and what I'm sure David doesn't know - is that marrying a Saudi national is the only way for anyone to gain Saudi citizenship;

Saudi Arabia’s government is keen to protect the status quo and doesn’t want to compromise its cultural values or standard of living by allowing foreigners to become a permanent part of society. Your only route to becoming a naturalised citizen is by marriage to a national; even this, however, doesn’t guarantee citizenship, particularly for non-Muslims.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Saudi-Arabia/Saudi-Arabia-Guide/Visas-Permits/Citizenship

Palestinians have to marry a Saudi to become a Saudi citizen. So does anyone else who wants to become a Saudi citizen.

Again. With the exception of Lebanon, every host state offers paths to citizenship. Some are paperwork, some are evidently matrimonial, but they are equally applied to refugees and to other petitioners. it is up to the individual refugee to pursue naturalization and citizenship in their host country. Refugees who do so abandon their status as refugees, and the rigths and status that come with being a refugee, including, importantly, the right to return to their country of origin.

[hack89]

33. You need to read what others post

There are two posts about the Saudi nationalization law that prove you wrong. The law allows nationalizations for anyone living in the country for ten years. Only one nationality is specifically barred from taking advantage of the law. Care to take a guess?

[Shaktimaan]

34. Another new error.

Actually Palestinian refugees don't lose their refugee status after becoming citizens of another state. The rules for Palestinian refugees versus refugees of any other sort are entirely different. The fact that you are unaware of these basic details really demonstrates how little you know about this subject. You really showed your ass on this one.

[azurnoir]

35. A question about your statement here

the question concerns the bolded part

Shaktimaan
34. Another new error.

View profile
Actually Palestinian refugees don't lose their refugee status after becoming citizens of another state. The rules for Palestinian refugees versus refugees of any other sort are entirely different. The fact that you are unaware of these basic details really demonstrates how little you know about this subject. You really showed your ass on this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113482933#post35

first do have a reference for that, one that cites the exact law where is made possible. I'm rather confused here because we see much demonization of Arab countries for keeping Palestinians as refugees and not making them citizens but if what you state is true then how that even relevant as Palestinian refugees would be refugees regardless of their citizenship status in another country

[King_David]

39. Arab League doesn't make laws.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Which law?

It's in the rules set by the unrwa regarding Palestinian refugee status. While Arab states justifiably get shit for refusing Palestinian refugees citizenship the fact that they'd technically remain refugees according to the unrwa is besides the point. The issue isn't the un's classification of them, it's the fact that they're denied citizenship by the states they live in/were born in.

[azurnoir]

41. can you cite the UNRWA rule that states Palestinians retain refugee status even if they become

citizens of another country? Yes the issue is Arab countries making according to what you say would be an empty gesture of granting Palestinian refugees citizenship as they would still be refugees. which makes one wonder what really is going on here, it could seem either you're wrong about this rule or law of UNRWA's or it is simply a means of demonizing Arabs as a whole for not doing that which would be meaningless anyway

[King_David]

38. +1

Unbelievable .

[Scootaloo]

45. Ah yes, the prior protection clause.

Yes, I "really showed my ass" by not immediately remembering article B3(ii) on the UNWRA note regarding Article 1D of the 1951 convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees.

Meanwhile none of you have been able to provide any evidence of your initial assertion, that the Arab states (besides lebanon) bar Palestinaisn from citizenship. I can understand how snarking about my lack of recollection of hte psecifity of a clause on a note to an article is a fun diversion from that fact, though.

[Shaktimaan]

46. Actually they did.

Reread if you missed it.

[Scootaloo]

47. They didn't, in fact

Hack tried to use 'residency' as a synonym for 'denied citizenship" which is nonsense. David seems to be relying on some sort of just-so story; maybe he'll come up with some documentation to back it up, but so far he seems too invested with repeatign the word "rubbish" over and over again and hoping that makes him correct somehow.



Also, Mosby gave a kind of sorry answer to the question I'm pretty sure I posed to you. So there was that.

At any rate. End of the day? Palestinians have the right to return. Even if the other Arab states really were these evil, scheming, awful, perfidious, treacherous, monstrous, hook-nosed coin-pinchers the narrative you present needs them to be (odd, how readily tropes get recycled, I find) it would not change the rights of the Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

48. Wow.

I've seen more elegant baiting on flounder day boats.

[azurnoir]

58. Thank you and it does point out the hypocracy involved when we see the 'concern' about Palestinian

refugees not being made citizens in the (Arab) countries in which they are currently residing, they would still be refugees, nothing would change but the concern and outrage does make for certain appearance, seemingly tailored for a liberal audience when in reality it would simply be an empty gesture

and a note I'm not sure why the poster I initially asked was unwilling or unable to cite what you just did

[King_David]

36. You need read more about this and IP in general

because even though you post with confidence your completely wrong as usual.

Now go back and read the links provided.

Your clearly wrong on this issue
( and other IP issues despite the "confidence in posting&quot

[Scootaloo]

44. You know, your huffing doesn't actually make your assertions of "rubbish" true, David.

You raised an intriguing possibility.

I researched it.

Your assertion is unsupported.

Maybe you could provide some primary documentation on the issue, rather than wikipedia blurbs that source defunct links? Thanks.

[King_David]

37. What nonsense

You just don't understand the issues,

From the same article :

Palestinians are the sole foreign group that cannot benefit from a 2004 law passed by Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers, which entitles expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship.[58]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee

You really don't know about this topic.

[Scootaloo]

43. i have a wikipedia blurb that goes to a defunct arabnews link

All my other searching has turned up a few more sources of information on how to get Saudi citizenship. There is indeed a 2004 law that makes the required residency ten years - which is an incrase from the five it was before. But no mention in this law of Palestinians. I've found a few other more recent additions to the ebb and flow of Saudi Arabian citizenship, and again, no mention of Palestinians. Nor of refugees, nor anything else.

In fact all I ever find on that topic, are assertions that "The Arab league forbids it." The only citation I have for this claim is the aforementioned Protocol for the Treatment of Palestinians in Arab States (Casablanca Protocol.)

Unfortunately for the claim, there is nothing at all within the Casablanca protocol which mandates the member states bar Palestinaisn from citizenship;

On the basis of the Charter of the League of Arab States and its special annex pertaining to Palestine, and of the LAS Council resolution concerning the Palestinian issue, and, in particular, of the Special resolution pertaining to safeguarding Palestinian existence,

The Council of Foreign Ministers of Member states agreed, in its meeting in Casablanca on 10 September 1965, upon the following regulations, and called upon member states to take the necessary measures to put them into the sphere of implementation:

(1) Whilst retaining their Palestinian nationality, Palestinians currently residing in the land of ...... have the right of employment on par with its citizens.

(2) Palestinians residing at the moment in ...... in accordance with the dictates of their interests, have the right to leave and return to this state.

(3) Palestinians residing in other Arab states have the right to enter the land of ...... and to depart from it, in accordance with their interests. Their right of entry only gives them the right to stay for the permitted period and for the purpose they entered for, so long as the authorities do not agree to the contrary.

(4) Palestinians who are at the moment in ......, as well as those who were residing and left to the Diaspora, are given, upon request, valid travel documents. The concerned authorities must, wherever they be, issue these documents or renew them without delay.

(5) Bearers of these travel documents residing in LAS states receive the same treatment as all other LAS state citizens, regarding visa, and residency applications.

While you are correct that I did not know the specific minutae of Saudi Arabia's citizenship laws (nor did you until this discussion began, I'm sure) i am finding absolutely nothing that actually backs up the claims you have established.

In fact Dave, it looks as though you're being taken for a ride by your own assumptions of inherent Arab villainy.

[King_David]

30. What rubbish ,

See post 28

[Carlos Rodrigez]

18. 2016, my butt.

2016 is entirely impractical. 2116 mabye, but not 2016.