Prisoner exchange
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
Actually no, that is not what it says.No, universal human rights say that the Palestinian refugees should be able to return to their homes, whether that's in Israel or the occupied lands.
It says this: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Their country is Palestine, not Israel. They have a right to return to Palestine. They don't even accept Israel's right to exist so they sure as hell don't believe their country is Israel!!!
I love how you think you can just wholesale make this stuff up and you won't be called on your bullshit. You are, as usual, flat out fucking wrong.
Now the UN did pass a special rule just for Palestinians, that applies to no other refugees anywhere else in the world, that is certainly not "universal" and not a "human right". That resolution says this:
Note this ONLY applies if they are willing to "live in peace with their neighbours". The Palestinians of the day (and many still) wholesale rejected Israel and were adamant that they were not willing to live in peace with Israel, so they lost that right.Resolution 194 said: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
The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others made it VERY clear that they are not "at peace" with Israel and did not wish to be!!!
I also highlighted in red the word "should". As you know very well from our previous discussions that is the term that the UN uses to signal that a clause is NON-BINDING. When the UN intends something to be a binding provision it "decides" that it "must" be done.
So what we have here is a non-binding resolution that says Palestinians should be allowed to return to their homes, but only if they are willing to live in peace with Israel--which they were not willing.
You are wrong.Actually no, that is not what it says.
It says this: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Their country is Palestine, not Israel.
If they were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel, then they have the universal right to return there.
If they were ethnically cleansed...they would be dead would they not?You are wrong.
If they were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel, then they have the universal right to return there.
I really don't think you understand the right of return either. You throw around the term Universal Human rights in a way that shows you don't grasp its meaning as well.
I love how some Palestinian Arabs were 'ethnically cleansed' while others were welcome to stay in Israel with full citizenship. Makes a lot of sense.
They were not!If they were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel
They do not!then they have the universal right to return there.
I showed you the text of the laws. The law does not agree with your view. One rule says they have a right to return to "their country", which is Palestine and not Israel. The other, a specific rule just for Palestinians and not a universal rule, says that those who were willing to "live in peace with their neighbours" should (non binding) be allowed to go home. Since they were never willing to live in peace with their neighbours that has no force, especially since it was non binding to begin with.
Neither the law nor the facts of history agree with you. I have noticed that you have no reasons for the things you think.
Don't be asinine, Rid. We both know ethnic cleansing doesn't mean killing, it means removing a population based on race or religion.If they were ethnically cleansed...they would be dead would they not?
I really don't think you understand the right of return either. You throw around the term Universal Human rights in a way that shows you don't grasp its meaning as well.
Right of return from wiki, to refresh your memory:
The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora.
Supporters of a Palestinian right of return argue that refugees, displaced persons, and all their descendants have a right to return and a right to property they left or were forced to leave in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories (formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine) as result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day war.[23]
Ethnic cleansing apparently doesn't mean removing a population either, since there are still Arabs living in those areas. As has been pointed out--the Arabs who remained were treated better by the Israelis than the Arabs who fled were treated by Jordan. That's a pretty funny ethnic cleansing, when you are better off staying behind than leaving!!!
I love how you try and rewrite these things, to support your bullshit little misrepresentations. That is not what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says. I bolded the part that you wholesale made up all by yourself.The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin.
People have a right to return to "their country", normally that wouldn't be a big difference, but the Palestinian refugees do not claim to be Israeli, in fact no-one claims that they are Israelis[/i]. They claim to be Palestinian, practically everyone claims that they are Palestinian.
I love how you try and rewrite these things, to support your bullshit little misrepresentations. That is not what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says. I bolded the part that you wholesale made up all by yourself.
People have a right to return to "their country", normally that wouldn't be a big difference, but the Palestinian refugees do not claim to be Israeli, in fact no-one claims that they are Israelis[/i]. They claim to be Palestinian, practically everyone claims that they are Palestinian.
Ah, but there is no country called Palestine right now, and your friends are working very hard to keep it that way.
The right of return is to the land, not the name of the country. Call it Ohio and they are still entitled to come back if they were ethnically cleansed by terrorists at war.
Sure there is--it's just occupied by Israel. Nobody on either side claims that Palestinian refugees have Israeli citizenship.Ah, but there is no country called Palestine right now, and your friends are working very hard to keep it that way.
Not according to the law. It specifically says everyone has a right "to return to his country".The right of return is to the land, not the name of the country.
Resolution 194 says "return to their homes" but that only applies to people willing to "live at peace with their neighbours" and it is non-binding in any case.
It sounds like you wish the law said something different than it actually does...
Thanks for confirming my point.Resolution 194 says "return to their homes" but that only applies to people willing to "live at peace with their neighbours" and it is non-binding in any case.
The right of return is to their 'homes', not dependent on the name of the country.
There are two separate laws here, groggy. The universal declaration of human rights, and resolution 194.
The declaration is "to his country" and does not give Palestinians any right to go to Israel, which is not their country.
Then there is resolution 194, which is non binding, and so does not give any rights at all. It urges that those willing to "live in peace with their neighbors" be allowed to return "to their homes". This does not apply because Palestinians decided not to live in peace with Israel, and until recently were very out spoken about being at war with Israel.
The declaration is "to his country" and does not give Palestinians any right to go to Israel, which is not their country.
Then there is resolution 194, which is non binding, and so does not give any rights at all. It urges that those willing to "live in peace with their neighbors" be allowed to return "to their homes". This does not apply because Palestinians decided not to live in peace with Israel, and until recently were very out spoken about being at war with Israel.
You are wrong on the first count. The Palestinian's right to return does not vanish in a poof with the name change of their homes.There are two separate laws here, groggy. The universal declaration of human rights, and resolution 194.
The declaration is "to his country" and does not give Palestinians any right to go to Israel, which is not their country.
Then there is resolution 194, which is non binding, and so does not give any rights at all. It urges that those willing to "live in peace with their neighbors" be allowed to return "to their homes". This does not apply because Palestinians decided not to live in peace with Israel, and until recently were very out spoken about being at war with Israel.
And the second count is ridiculous. 194 was passed in 1948 in which Israel refused to respond by repatriation or restitution.
Refusing repatriation based on your idea of whether refugees would be peaceful is disingenuous at best, since most of their grievances were with being ethnically cleansed in the first place.Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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;
Sorry Groggy but the text of the law IS important. It does not say what you wish it would say, and maybe that's too bad, but it is what it is. The Declaration says that someone has a right to return "to their country", and the nations of the world have never agreed on any other meaning but that one. The Palestinian refugees are not Israeli citizens, do not claim to be Israeli citizens, Israel does not claim that they are citizens--nobody claims that they are Israelis. Israel is not their country. They claim to be Palestinians. Palestine is their country.
As for 194, you are correct it's from 1948, and at that time the Palestinians were adamant that they would never, ever even consider peace with Israel, so that does not apply to them, not even as a non binding recommendation. It only ever recommended that people who were willing to live in peace with their neighbours be allowed to go home, and they were not willing to live in peace, so not allowed to go home. On the contrary at that time the Palestinians insisted they would destroy Israel, the opposite of living in peace.
As for 194, you are correct it's from 1948, and at that time the Palestinians were adamant that they would never, ever even consider peace with Israel, so that does not apply to them, not even as a non binding recommendation. It only ever recommended that people who were willing to live in peace with their neighbours be allowed to go home, and they were not willing to live in peace, so not allowed to go home. On the contrary at that time the Palestinians insisted they would destroy Israel, the opposite of living in peace.
Your interpretation is wrong, Fuji.
According to all precedents since 194 and all treaties Israel has signed, the refugees have a right to return.
Your claim that you can ethnically cleanse a population then declare their country no longer their homeland is both repulsive and wrong.
As for this 'leave in peace' claim, has Israel asked the refugees if they would live in peace, or are you using your Kreskin like powers again?
According to all precedents since 194 and all treaties Israel has signed, the refugees have a right to return.
Your claim that you can ethnically cleanse a population then declare their country no longer their homeland is both repulsive and wrong.
As for this 'leave in peace' claim, has Israel asked the refugees if they would live in peace, or are you using your Kreskin like powers again?
Man is grog repetitive in his losing arguments. At least he hasn't said (in this thread) that there's no Palestinian terrorism.
So, then I guess you think there was no intention of genocide during the holocaust then because there were Jews living in other countries.I love how some Palestinian Arabs were 'ethnically cleansed' while others were welcome to stay in Israel with full citizenship. Makes a lot of sense.
Nope. You may wish it was, but it's correct.Your interpretation is wrong, Fuji.
Citation needed. You are making up bullshit again, as usual.According to all precedents since 194 and all treaties Israel has signed, the refugees have a right to return.
That's not what happened. The Arabs rejected the existence of Israel and launched a war against it. To this day they still reject Israel.Your claim that you can ethnically cleanse a population then declare their country no longer their homeland is both repulsive and wrong.
Their leaders declared at the time that they would never accept Israel.As for this 'leave in peace' claim, has Israel asked the refugees if they would live in peace, or are you using your Kreskin like powers again?
Trying to ignore the countless other UN resolutions confirming the right of return, Fuji?
242
338
2649
3236
43/177
48/94
There's a few for a start.
Now, give me one ruling from the UN, ICC or ICJ that revokes the Palestinian refugees Universal Right of Return.
Find me one legal ruling from an internationally reputed body, not from Israel.
Hint-its probably as easy to find as all the threats Iran made to Israel
242
338
2649
3236
43/177
48/94
There's a few for a start.
Now, give me one ruling from the UN, ICC or ICJ that revokes the Palestinian refugees Universal Right of Return.
Find me one legal ruling from an internationally reputed body, not from Israel.
Hint-its probably as easy to find as all the threats Iran made to Israel
