Meshal: Hamas backs state in '67 lines, right of return

[subsuelo]

Interesting development. One might be tempted to call it encouraging...

Hamas supports the united Palestinian position calling for the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam.

In a special interview with Wednesday's edition of the paper, Meshal said the Palestinian position had received a vote of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position is considered acceptable to the Arab world at large.

read more

[Jim Sagle]

1. Right of return is a non-starter. It's just a catch phrase meaning, Destroy Israel.

[subsuelo]

2. You share the attitude of the Chinese regime towards Tibetans

Denying an internationally recognized human right to a native population forced out of their homes.

Congratulations.

[mirrera]

3. Exactly... and I am Jewish.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Right of return is a non-starter. It's just a catch phrase meaning, Destroy Israel.

[subsuelo]

5. Wow you can copy and paste your own posts

Impressive.

I have to assume it's too much to request an explanation for denying human rights to displaced indigenous people. Valid justification would require a bit more effort and actual thought beyond copying and pasting meaningless one liners.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Right of return will destroy Israel

Israel is a Jewish state.

There are 22 Arab nations surrounding Israel.

There doesn't need to be a 23rd.

And it is a non-starter.

NO WAY IN HELL will Israelis even begin to entertain the idea of right of return (unless it is very limited). The right of return will be to the new Palestinian state.

[subsuelo]

8. Then you are forced to admit that some human rights do not apply to all humans

You do realize that right?

[Shaktimaan]

24. But is right of return a basic human right?

When has it ever been enacted, for all the refugees of this past century's wars, how often is a right of return enforced or even seriously discussed? Has it ever happened when the land the refugees left changed hands and became a new state? I can think of only a few isolated instances of it happening even when the country in question remained solvent.

Returning to a country you were forced to leave is one thing, even though it only rarely happens, (and even then only if the state decides to offer it of its own accord.) But a right to return to a state that you were never a citizen of, because you or your family once lived on the land where it now stands... when has such a right been declared? Much less enacted?

[kayecy]

26. Well since you ask, what about Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well since you ask, how about this:

Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

looks like a pretty basic right to me, but perhaps you think otherwise?

[Shaktimaan]

29. Legally, there's no answer to this one.

There are two sides, one which you outlined. The opposing view holds that Art. 13 applies to those returning to their own country, not necessarily those who lived or owned land in an area before the country was established. The Palestinians were never citizens of Israel, thus they do not have the right to return.

There are other complications as well. Take Arafat for example. He was born and raised in Cairo to Palestinian parents. He lived in Palestine for a total of four years during his youth, with his mother's family, before returning to Egypt, many years before the nakba. Clearly Arafat identified himself as Palestinian. But he was an egyptian citizen and didn't spend much time in Palestine himself. Should those four years he spent there, or his Palestinian lineage qualify him as able to claim a right of return under article 13, whereby Palestine, and not Egypt, is "his country?"

Regardless of how we might interpret this article, or other similar ones, I think the strongest legal evidence against right of return would be precedent. There are no examples of refugees having acted previously on any universal right of return. If it would apply to the Palestinians then it would certainly also have to apply to the Jews expelled from Arab states, which no one is arguing for. It would have to apply universally, not just to Palestinians. I think it becomes difficult to argue in favor of a right's existence when no precedent exists of a people having ever exercised it beforehand... or are seen as having that right today, excepting this single group.

[shaayecanaan]

31. Corrections...

I think it becomes difficult to argue in favor of a right's existence when no precedent exists of a people having ever exercised it beforehand... or are seen as having that right today, excepting this single group.

Plenty of refugees are "seen" as having that right, including Hutu refugees near Rwanda, or Azeri refugees previously living in Nagorno Karabakh. Hypocritically, Israel is one of the loudest voices calling for the return of the Azeri refugees, which must surely rank with its own denial of the Armenian genocide as one of the most blatantly disgusting examples of hypocrisy on the world stage.

Given that the Tibetan exiles were by and large not citizens of the Peoples Republic of China, nor were Azeri refugees ever citizens of the de facto Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, nor were most refugees citizens of the regimes that expelled them, your position essentially amounts to "Fuck the refugees". Congrats on that.

[kayecy]

44. But you do not mention Kosovo, Dafur, Iraq...where the West has insisted on refugee R.O.R rights...

Where have you read that Tibetan's may not return to Tibet?

Do you know of any western liberal democracy that will not allow anyone born in an area to return to that area?

[shaayecanaan]

45. Do you know of any western liberal democracy that will not allow anyone born in an area to return t

Only one.

Guess.

[kayecy]

50. As far as I know, only Israel displays this degree of indifference to human suffering.......n/t

[Igel]

56. Sure.

Italy, for one.

Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic, if you want to push it slightly. We'll ignore Russia and Belorus. And won't even venture to think about Pakistan and India.

Remember the mass deportations and population shifts in Europe after WWII?

No, probably not. No massive refugee camps set up, no restrictions saying that Sudeten and Polish Germans aren't pure enough Germans to live in Germany. No complaints from the Italians that the Italians from what's now Slovenia must be considered "Slovenians" for eternity, both them and their kids.

[kayecy]

73. Italy?........And how about the US going to war to restore Kosovo refugees?

Italy?...Poland?.....Where did you get your information from?.

I am only aware of the Slovenia/Czech Republic.....You will remember that Slovenia/Czech Republic was under German occupation for some years which probably accounts for their inhuman treatment of ex-German residents.....Has Israel been 'occupied' by Palestinians?....How does Israel explain its inhuman treatment of refugees?

Now we come to Kosovo.......The US went to war to force the Serbs to accept the Kosovo Albanian refugees.....Seems the US has one policy with dealing with Israel's inhumanities and another with the rest of the world

[kayecy]

43. Lawyers may dispute the meaning of Art 13, but the moral answer is surely clear?

....The opposing view holds that Art. 13 applies to those returning to their own country, not necessarily those who lived or owned land in an area before the country was established.

Lawyers will argue about the meaning of any word, but we are dealing with human lives here....I would have thought no one with a grain of humanity would object to an innocent refugee returning to the area where he was born whether or not someone had declared it was now a new country or not.....Your “.....before the country was established”.. seems to be rather inhumane and immoral don’t you think?

Ten years ago, the USA went to war in order to force the Serbs to allow refugee Kosovo Albanian to return their homes.....Why is the Kosovo situation different to the 1948 Palestinian refugees?

...There are no examples of refugees having acted previously on any universal right of return.

I think you are wrong.....Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) states:
” Encourages all Member States and international organizations to contribute to economic and social reconstruction as well as to the safe return of refugees and displaced persons”....perhaps not universal declaration, but clearly indicating a precedent.

...If it would apply to the Palestinians then it would certainly also have to apply to the Jews expelled from Arab states, which no one is arguing for

I think you would find that most of the civilized world, (with the possible exception of Arabs and Jews) would argue that Jews should have a right to return to their homes in Arab states.
.

[shaayecanaan]

30. Really?

NO WAY IN HELL will Israelis even begin to entertain the idea of right of return (unless it is very limited). The right of return will be to the new Palestinian state.

So other countries should be forced to absorb a refugee problem that Israel created? And Israel should not be required to at least some of those refugees? And a population almost twice the size of Israel's should be forced to survive on less than one-quarter of the land?

Here's a handy quiz for you. Read till the end and see how you score:-

1.

Its 1988. Armenian forces attack Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan in response to Azeri pogroms against Armenian residents there. Armenians have long faced persecution at the hands of various Turkic peoples in the region. Fighting ensues, the Armenians overcome the Azeris and declare Nagorno-Karabakh to be an independent republic. 200,000 Azeri residents of Karabakh are expelled or flee. The international community, including Israel and the United States, insists that Karabakh remains Azeri territory and that the Azeri refugees be entitled to return. Is this a legitimate position? Yes/No

2.

Kosovo, 1999. NATO forces attack Serbia in response to actions by the Serb government against Kosovar Albanians. In the aftermath of the NATO campaign, 200,000 Serb refugees are forced to flee. Should they be allowed to return?

3.

Rwanda, 1994. Hutu militias kill staggering amounts of Tutsi Rwandans while the world watches in silence. Tutsi rebels eventually seize the country and prompt hundreds of thousands of Hutus to flee. Hutu refugees are now starving in squalid refugee camps dotted along the border. The international community has requested Rwanda attempt to reintegrate the 2 million Hutu refugees that have fled episodes of ethnic violence since 1959. Is this a legitimate position? Yes/no

[oberliner]

12. Does Right of Return apply only to displaced indigenous people?

It's my understanding that, in this context, it is meant to include their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren as well.

If my grandparents were forcefully expelled 65 years ago from, let's say, Poland, do I have the right (either under international law or in your personal opinion) to return to the village from which they were expelled?

[subsuelo]

14. You tell me - do they? Would you have a right to return to the home your family was forced from?

How about Iraq's refugees. Say their children or grandchildren want to go to their family's homes 50 or 60 years from now.

Do they have a right to return to the homes of their families?

You tell me.

[oberliner]

18. That is my question to you - my answer is that (legally) I don't think I would

If we are talking about international law (as it currently stands), I think the answer is no.

That's both to my hypothetically example about Poland 50 years ago and yours about Iraq 50 years from now.

Personal opinion may be another matter.

What is your opinion?

[subsuelo]

20. I fully support the human right known as Right of Return

That would go for your example about Poland, would go for Iraqis, would go for Palestnians, and for Tibetans.

In other words, all humans.

Obviously you would have to draw the line somewhere regarding a time frame or claims to certain ancestry. My personal opinion would be children and grandchildren should share in the right.

[Shaktimaan]

27. I have a question... or 4.

Your post made me think of something. What is the standard for being able to claim right of return? For example, let's say we are looking at a multi-generational Palestinian family. The grandfather lived in Palestine, but was expelled during the Nakba, after which he and his son became Jordanian citizens living in the west bank. Following Jordan's decision to strip them of their citizenship they moved to America where the grandson was born, a US citizen.

Now then, how many countries should each person be able to claim a right of return to?

If it is just one, then who gets to decide which one?

And how should right of return be affected by one's refugee status? Do Palestinian Americans have the same right of return as stateless refugees or does it not matter?

[shaayecanaan]

34. Simple question, simple answer

Refugees cease to be refugees when they are given asylum in another country. The UNRWA identifies as Palestinian refugees only stateless people, that is, people not granted full residence or citizenship in Jordan or Israel.

Unfortunately for the Israelis, the UNRWA has kept meticulous records of the Palestinian refugees, so unfortunately this is one bullshit excuse not available to them.

[eyl]

38. That's actually incorrect, AFAIK

While what you say is correct under the Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951), UNRWA - unlike the UNHCR (which deals with all other refugees worldwide - still counts those attaining citizenship in another country as refugees. For example, UNWRA reported ~1.8 million registered refugees in Jordan in 2005; but almost all of those Palestinians are actually Jordanian citizens! (for that matter, so are many of the refugees in the West Bank)

I should note that the 1951 Convention does not instill refugee status on the children of refugees, either.

[Vegasaurus]

39. Why the UNWRA refugee status, living in squalid camps, with assorted handouts and aid

is preferable to getting a better life elsewhere, which refugees have done throughout the world, is beyond me.

[shaayecanaan]

46. Answer...

No one is offering them a life outside of the refugee camps. To be fair to Jordan, they have absorbed a large proportion of Palestinian refugees and should not be expected to take on any more.

IMO, Britain has a significant moral responsibility given its role in the Nakba and should be expected to absorb some of the refugees. Palestinians who were kicked out of the gulf states following the first gulf war should be permitted to return. Other states have a role to play. I concede that Lebanon would not be able to properly absorb all of the refugees resident there, given the small size of that country.

But to say that Israel should pass the entire burden of resettling refugees onto other countries when it created the refugee crisis is ridiculous.

[shaayecanaan]

47. You are correct and I apologise nt

[eyl]

48. No need for apologies n/t

[azurnoir]

25. But let me ask you

Do you want to live in Poland? Where is your home? Does it occur that for Palestinians who were born after 1948, may of whom have never lived in Israel, that Israel is a foreign country, a place the really old folks talk about? Not to slight Israel, but who says that most Palestinians want to live there? Israel is a place that they have been taught is enemy territory, with people that they have been taught their entire lives want to harm them and vis versa as their neighbors? Excuse me but in the words of Hommie the Clown "I don't think so"

Now this my opinion, however I have seen at least one poll here that stated most Palestinians would rather have some type of monetary compensation, and that seems a possible premise, but the idea that most Palestinians would come flooding into Israel seems hyperbolic or almost arrogant in a "it's so much better in Israel, why wouldn't they?" sort of way.

[Shaktimaan]

32. You make a good point.

Why do you suppose it is such a big deal then, for Hamas to insist upon it as they do? And for Arafat to have allowed the camp david talks to fall apart, largely as a result of it?

Since the name of the game is self-determination and having their own autonomous Palestinian state, then why has every Palestinian leader unwaveringly demanded the right for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens? Doesn't it seem kind of counter-productive considering their main goal?

[azurnoir]

55. Why such a big deal?

Admission of guilt on Israel's part? Why is "right to exist" such a big deal, or more accurately why such a big when it comes to Hamas, but apparently not Fatah?

Semantics?
Stall tactic?

As for the 2000 "peace talks" true or false did Bill Clinton assure Arafat that if the talks failed no one would be blamed?

True, Clinton did assure Arafat of this and then reneged, was he giving Arafat enough rope to hang himself? If so, why?

[Shaktimaan]

63. Israel's right to exist is a big deal

because recognition of it is central to any lasting peace deal. It only matters now because the Arab states have always directly refuted Israel's right to exist, with the promise that they would eventually destroy the state. So before Israel can reasonably make peace with any of these states or groups that repeatedly tried to end her existence it is necessary for them to formally renounce their opposition to Israel's existence. The rules are the same for everyone. The PLO, which Fatah is a member of, has already recognized Israel's right to exist, which was the thing that made direct negotiations between the two finally possible.

If Israel is especially distrustful of Hamas it is because of Hamas' own statements and actions. They have repeatedly gone on record to attest to their continued opposition to Israel and to their promise to eventually liberate all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. For this reason they have stated their refusal to consider any permanent peace deals; the most they can offer are temporary hudnas.

We can theorize as to how many Palestinians would choose to return to the land within Israel, and if East Jerusalem is any indication it doesn't look like many would want to become Israeli. But we can't reasonably ask Israel to accept a condition that actually has the potential to destroy Israel and holds the likelihood of causing incredible strains and strife to its society. If Israel agrees to this then it loses control over regulating its own population and immigration. Israel is a small country, it would not take much unregulated Palestinian immigration to throw it into chaos, even if the immigrants arrive with the best of intentions. Realistically, these two groups have been fighting for 100 years and there's no question that groups like Hamas would take advantage of the situation. In short, it simply isn't feasible for Israel to accept without risking its entire society.

But back to my question... why is it such a big deal? Israel can admit guilt without agreeing to ROR. They can give reparations. And Palestinians can still have a right of return. They would just not be allowed to return to their exact, original village, but they could still return to Palestine.

I have my own theory. I think it has to do with that everyone knows that ROR to Israel is something that Israel simply can not agree to. It's a non-starter. In Hamas' case, it's an out. It isn't that they won't come to terms with Israel. It is that Israel keeps refusing their terms. It's like Jerusalem for Israel. No one who is serious about negotiating for peace with the Palestinians would demand that Israel keep all of Jerusalem. Because it isn't something that Palestine can agree to. Hamas doesn't really want peace forever. So they make impossible demands of Israel.

[azurnoir]

68. Fatah has recognized Israel ?

When last week?

Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and assigned its legal committee the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter consistent with the Arafat letters in order to present it for approval.<17> A redrafted charter that does not call for the destruction of Israel has yet to be presented or approved and the official PNA website displays the original, unamended text of the PNC Charter. According to the US Department of State, "The Palestinian National Charter... amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9–10 September 1993."<18>

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

The last sentence says that the US State dept claims there is a redrafted charter, but as of yet it has not been made public

Arafat may have signed a declaration however Arafat is dead, and nothing publicly has changed

On edit Abbas has stated that Fatah would recognize Israel but the statement of that sort was a while ago, at present it has not happened

[Shaktimaan]

69. Hey, what can I tell you?

I guess the letter and their experiences dealing with Fatah since then were enough, regardless of the lack of an officially redrafted charter.

A common criticism of Israel in these peace negotiations is that they stand on ceremony too much, requiring recognition or whatever before they're willing to sit down and talk. So, if Israel is showing some more flexibility here, I'm not going to chew them out for it. Ultimately what matters is that Israel feels like Fatah and Abbas are trustworthy partners, and the events that allowed them the time to build up some kind of "good enough" relationship were the letter of recognition and the talks that followed. Hamas has been unwilling to give a similar token of good faith or any indication at all that they would ever consider Israel's existence anything but an as yet unpunished crime.

Is this really the key thing you chose to latch onto from my last post; is it such a critical detail that it warrants an actual debate? What, was this a trap or something?

[azurnoir]

70. No not a trap at all

IMHO both side should drop the "code lines" "right to exist and right of return" at least for the time being, it is not that they're unimportant, but they do tend to be inflammatory and have stalled the process long enough.
As for refugees I agree with those who say that the people who were displaced in 1948 should be allowed to return if they choose, I doubt many of them are still living and what are the chances that their villages and houses are still standing? Really Israel at this point Israel would be a foreign country to them also.

[Shaktimaan]

75. I tend to agree.

It is not as if Israel would believe a Hamas statement testifying to their right to exist anyway. Israel has plenty of reasons to not trust Hamas' intentions, any single declaration on its own really wouldn't matter.

I have mixed feelings about the right of return for Palestinian refugees. On the one hand I honestly have trouble with the idea of denying people who are, for the most part, just civilians who were caught at the wrong place at the wrong time and have since been used as political pawns by everyone, (and are all basically elderly now anyway). They really should be able to finally go back home if they still want to, especially if they're willing to become Israeli to get to do it.

But the reality of the situation is that when Hamas and Arafat say Right of Return they mean for the whole 4 million refugees, descendants included, so on simply a practical level it isn't feasible. No nation could be expected to willingly abandon control over immigration on such a scale. On an ethical level I also don't really agree that the risks it poses to Israeli society are more insignificant than ensuring that the refugees get to return to the exact patch of land they, or their grandparents left 60 years ago. I agree that there should be a right of return and reparations. But I think they should return to a Palestinian state, not to Israel. As things stand now 40-45% of the Palestinian refugees are living in the OPT. (80% if we also include citizens of Jordan.) Can you really be considered a Palestinian refugee if you are living in Palestine? I understand that being internally displaced isn't the greatest thing ever, but it also isn't the same thing as being exiled from your homeland.

If there was no land for a future state of Palestine, or if there was more than just this single state for the Jewish people, if Israel had begun the war that displaced the refugees to begin with, or if there had not been a mass exile of Jews from Arab states who Israel already absorbed, etc., then I might feel differently. But as things stand now I think that the refugee issue could be addressed in better ways for all parties involved than by insisting on their right to become Israeli citizens.

Just kidding about the trap thing btw.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. That is utter hogwash. Your rejectionist attitude is a nonstarter. At least you're honest. nt

[aranthus]

10. There is no "Right of Return"

That's right folks. There is no absolute, unconditional, universal right of return. Not for Palestinians, and not for anyone else. Please don't cite UNGAR 194 or any other UN resolution. They're irrelevant for several reasons (Among others: 1. The UN is not a moral arbiter, so its declarations don't mean anything; 2. You can't legislate rights; they either exist or they don't). Do the Germans or their descendants forced out of what is now western Poland have the right to return to their homes and turn Poland into an extension of Germany? Ask a Pole that. Do they then have the right to reparations from Poland and Russia for their losses in World War Two? Don't even ask that question. Do Muslims forced out of India or Hindus forced out of Pakistan in 1947 have the right to return to their land? Of course not. Refugees have traditionally been absorbed by their host countries. The only reason that the Palestinians have not is so they could be molded into a weapon to use against Israel.

Even when refugees have been allowed back, it has been under strict conditions. That's another reason why the Germans aren't going back to Silesia or East Prussia: aggressors lose their rights. Assuming that Israel has a right to exist (meaning that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own), then the Palestinians started the Arab/Israeli Wars as surely as the Germans started World War Two. They lost, so they don't get to go back. Even, 194 limits the supposed return to those who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. That leaves out most of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are the first people I know of to start a war, lose that war, and then claim the rights of victors.

[Malikshah]

11. So all that talk about Iraq's violation of UNSCRs was for naught???

Oh. Ok.

Gotta watch out for those black helicopters!

Hey-- what about that UN Committee from, oh, 1947... UNSCOP... Does an 8-3 vote ring a bell?

Hey-- what about the UN vote later on?

Doesn't count.

Guess some country has a lot of 'splainin to do to its citizens.

"Our bad, we're not legit, because the UN doesn't count"

At least try and be consistent...

[aranthus]

17. It made good propaganda.

But I don't think for a minute that Iraq's violations of UN resolutions were, or would be a moral justification for invading Iraq, if there weren't other good reasons for going in (and I'm not saying there were).

Now about 181. It doesn't justify Israel, didn't create Israel, and was quite likely little more than a smokescreen to cover the British abandonment of the Jews and the Palestinians. It is as irrelevant to a discussion of rights and wrongs as any other UN resolution. Is that clear enough for you?

Please people. Don't put words in my mouth just to score points. It's not fair; it's not honest, and it just makes you look bad in the end. And don't try to claim I'm being inconsistent unless you've got me on record saying two different things.

[Malikshah]

42. You're stating that the UN is irrelevant -- the UN created Israel

Sanctioned its inception.

To ignore this part of history is wrong.

It's completely fair, honest, and right to call you out on that.

You cannot have it both ways and then continually cry that folks are putting words in your mouth.

By stating that Resolutions are always irrelevant you are undercutting key processes of the the UN itself.

In so doing you are denuding the UN of authority.

In so doing you are taking away any role the UN plays or has played.

Listen-- in your zeal to do whatever you're trying to do with regard to UN resolutions, you have inadvertently argued yourself into a corner.

Accept the mistake and try to move on.

For now, your repeated cries of "don't put words in my mouth" increasingly come across as ludicrous. Your credibility in this argument is only decreasing as you continue on this fallacious line of argument.

[aranthus]

60. This is not true

First, I didn't say that the UN is irrelevant. I said that UN resolutions are irrelevant to a discussion of right and wrong. In particular I was saying that UNGAR 194 was irrelevant to the issue of whether the Palestinians have a "Right of Return". As I will show further down, the UN does more than merely pass resolutions, so it has some usefulness. Second, and more important, the UN did not create Israel; the Israelis did.

Sanctioned its inception. Again, not true. The history of UNGAR 181 is somewhat complex, and the Resolution is long, but you should take a look at it. It does not sanction anything. 181 is about this: The British were ruling Palestine because they conquered it in World War Two. they had the League of Nations rubber stamp that conquest in I believe 1920. Then in 1947, they wanted to abandon Palestine. They knew that when they did, the Jews would declare a state, the Arabs of Palestine would go to war to prevent it, and the Jews were probably going to get massacred when the Arab states joined the war. The British also knew because they were conspiring with the Jordanians) that Jordan was going to insure that was not going to be a Palestinian state win, lose, or draw. Because of all of this, the British wanted the UN to rubber stamp their withdrawal from Palestine, just as the League had rubber stamped the original conquest. So the British told the UN to declare an end to the Mandate. since the UN does what the member governments tell it to do, the UN declared an end to the Mandate. It also made recommendations to the British as to what the British should do before they left. The interesting thing is that the British made very clear before the resolution was even voted on that they were not going to do anything that the UN was about to recommend. So the resolution ultimately doesn't mean what you say it does.

What is really going on here is that you assume that Israel is otherwise illegitimate, and that it needs UN sanction to justify its existence. It's really a backhanded attack on Israel's right to exist. Is there a UN resolution sanctioning France? Or Japan? Do those states lack legitimacy because the UN hasn't legislated in their favor? Of course not. Israel has the same right to exist as France, Japan, Italy, or any other state, and the UN has nothing to do with it.

To ignore this part of history is wrong. Obviously, I haven't ignored the history of the Partition Resolution, or its text, which I have read several times. To the contrary, I think it is a stark proof of my ultimate point that UN resolutions have no moral value.

It's completely fair, honest, and right to call you out on that.

You cannot have it both ways and then continually cry that folks are putting words in your mouth.

How have I tried to have it both ways? I haven't claimed that the UN is the moral justification for Israel, you have. You're wrong. The moral justification for Israel is the same as for any other state, and the UN has nothing to do with it.

By stating that Resolutions are always irrelevant you are undercutting key processes of the the UN itself.

In so doing you are denuding the UN of authority.

Yes. By claiming that UN resolutions have no moral authority I am claiming that the UN has no moral authority.

In so doing you are taking away any role the UN plays or has played. No I am not. The UN has many roles that have nothing to do with UN resolutions. The UN acts as a forum for countries to speak to the world. It acts as a meeting place for countries to talk to each other. It provides a political umbrella for common projects such as the WHO and UNICEF. It provides political cover for actions that UN member states are going to take (such as the two Gulf Wars). Just because the place has become a moral cesspool doesn't mean that the UN plays no role at all.

[msmcghee]

64. Thanks for that view. I have often . .

. . thought about those things but have never seen it stated quite that way.

[aranthus]

65. Thanks

[Malikshah]

71. Nice spin.

You are interpreting and parsing your statements now that you have been challenged.

Always good for discourse.

Now you have qualified your statement about UN resolutions as not having *moral* authority.

That is your interpretation and one that is not shared by others when it suits them.

You have completely spun the latter half of the history of the Palestine Mandate and the actors/actions involved. It might help to read a bit more about the key actors and their views regarding the final years.

Shlaim is a decent start.

The UK didn't give a toss--after the King David Hotel, WWII, problems in India, and countless other issues--they basically stated-- you guys do what you want-- we're out of here in May 1948.

Bevin was done with it.

I never state that Israel is illegitimate. I simply called you on your faulty logic, which would lead to that conclusion--which, in the end, is a moot point. Legitimacy is not a factor. Reality is what is key.

Reading a Resolution and its text repeatedly does not allow one to arrive at an accurate assessment of the history behind the Resolution.

Case in point-- the Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors versions of the Balfour Declaration, UN Resolution 242.

In the end-- one cannot have it both ways.

[eyl]

40. Given that almost every other country in the world

does not have UN approval for it's existence - so what?

And UNSC resolutions are different from UNGA resolutions - the former are binding instruments of international law, while the latter aren't.

[subsuelo]

13. Right - UN resolutions are irrelevant only when you want them to be

Got it

[aranthus]

15. No. They're irrelevant all the time.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[subsuelo]

16. Ah, got it. UN resolutions are always irrelevant.

Right on man. Down with UN! Just some commie pinko organization right

[aranthus]

19. Do you want to deal rationally with my post or just put words in my mouth so that you can rant? nt

[subsuelo]

22. You actually expect a rational response to the statement that UN resolutions are always irrelevant?

[aranthus]

23. Yes. Why should I care what the UN says? nt

[shaayecanaan]

76. Because if the UN is irrelevant, then the Jews simply took Palestine by conquest -nt

[shaayecanaan]

35. Except where Iran is involved...

and then somehow UN resolutions are worth their weight in gold. Gotta love how meticulously Israel monitors compliance with the NPT, given that they're one of the three countries that havent signed it.

[aranthus]

62. Did I say that? nt

[shaayecanaan]

33. More corrections...

Do Muslims forced out of India or Hindus forced out of Pakistan in 1947 have the right to return to their land?

The partition of India was consented to by both Indian National Congress (representing the Hindus) and the Muslim League (representing the Muslims, obviously). OTOH, The partition of Palestine was agreed to by the Jews, but imposed upon the Muslims.

Assuming that Israel has a right to exist (meaning that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own), then the Palestinians started the Arab/Israeli Wars as surely as the Germans started World War Two.

Assuming the United States has a right to exist, then the Native Americans started the frontier war with the white settlers as surely as the Germans started World War Two. Isnt it fun when someone takes your logic and follows it to its inescapably stupid conclusion?

1. The UN is not a moral arbiter, so its declarations don't mean anything; 2. You can't legislate rights; they either exist or they don't.

So I guess the US Bill of Rights, being an attempt to legislate rights, is a waste of time, then?

[Igel]

57. You mean the commission--the representatives of the

Hindus and Muslims--actually called for forced "repatriation" to their new homelands without compensation for lost property? That's why there were riots and massacres and 12 million or so people picked up and moved--they had agreed to the communal violence and turmoil? Doesn't that mean that the many millions of Muslims in India (and the much smaller number of Hindus in Pakistan) violated the agreement?

Ah.

No. The populations, it was assumed, would stay put. Minority rights would be protected. That was the agreement. Nobody consented to communal violence and being forced to flee. The rest is a violation, one would assume, of human rights, and those forced to leave either country would then be eligible for returning.

They're not discussing the partition of Palestine, a political issue of regimes and maps. They're talking displaced people.

I think the proper generalization is that refugees are accommodated in their new digs when it's politically expedient: When new countries are involved, where there's some reciprocal movement, when it's necessary for a larger peace, when it's to the host country's advantage. Hence Italy/Slovenia, Germany/Czechoslovakia, Poland/Russia and Poland/Germany, India/Pakistan, Jews/Arab countries. It's not acceptable when it's too much of a burden on the host country or there's a political advantage to be gained by rejecting the refugees--Pakistan/Afghanistan, Rwanda/Congo, Bangladesh/India, Chad/Sudan, Jews/Europe.

When human rights activists get involved, there's even less of a chance of settlement because one side sees no reason to capitulate--think of the Ivory Coast and nearby countries, with lots of displaced people that must be granted rights in their new digs, not forced to return. Activism and local politics are often intertwined: Forced repatriation to Iraq would be a human rights crime; forced repatriation to Afghanistan, by and large, isn't. People care passionately about displaced Darfuris--how dare people be treated that way?. People didn't and don't care about those displaced from southern Sudan--people?

Time and extent also matters. For the first decade or two repatriation is more likely. By the time the number of people born outside of the "home country" exceeds the number of people to be repatriated, most don't care unless there's some principle involved. They've set up new lives, usually in their own communities. Their kids assimilate or adapt. When refugees are kept in concentration camps and kept out of the loop, this changes a lot. When hurting another group = boosting your group (i.e., when group honor or religion is in play) this also changes. So some Germans don't like having been chucked out of the new Czechoslovakia; some just want compensation, but a few others are incensed that the inferior Slavs humiliated proud Teutons. It's the latter that are the problem; such rantings are considered shameful. It's the same kind of problem in Palestine; such rantings are considered patriotic, if not holy.

[aranthus]

61. Incorrect

Do Muslims forced out of India or Hindus forced out of Pakistan in 1947 have the right to return to their land?

The partition of India was consented to by both Indian National Congress (representing the Hindus) and the Muslim League (representing the Muslims, obviously). OTOH, The partition of Palestine was agreed to by the Jews, but imposed upon the Muslims.

As others have pointed out, I think that you have misstated what happened in the Indian subcontinent in 1947.

Assuming that Israel has a right to exist (meaning that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own), then the Palestinians started the Arab/Israeli Wars as surely as the Germans started World War Two.

Assuming the United States has a right to exist, then the Native Americans started the frontier war with the white settlers as surely as the Germans started World War Two. Isnt it fun when someone takes your logic and follows it to its inescapably stupid conclusion?

The facile argument would be that the Americans have certainly treated the Native Americans as if the were the aggressors. However, the better response is that this is a false analogy for several reasons. First, the European settlers were true colonists, and had no claim to America until well after they arrived and built a country here. The Jews were returning to their homeland, so they weren't colonists. Second, the Jews bought land and were attacked by the Arabs before they ever took Arab land by force. The Europeans came and took what they wanted (excepting Manhattan, of course). That made the Europeans the aggressors. Third, the Native Americans did not go to war with the Europeans to prevent the creation of the United States. The Arabs went to war with the Jews to prevent the creation of a Jewish sovereignty. Finally, it is clear that the Arabs started the fighting with the Jews. It is nowhere near as clear that the Native Americans attacked first in every instance.

1. The UN is not a moral arbiter, so its declarations don't mean anything; 2. You can't legislate rights; they either exist or they don't.

So I guess the US Bill of Rights, being an attempt to legislate rights, is a waste of time, then?

The Bill of Rights does not legislate rights, it merely enumerates some of them. Legislation creates something that does not otherwise exist. The American conception of rights is stated in the Declaration of Independence where it talks about inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Rights exist by virtue of being human, not because a law says so. Inalienable means that rights can not be taken away. If they could be legislated into existence, then they could be legislated out of existence. You might also want to look at Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights, which states that the enumeration of rights does not deny or disparage others retained by the people. The drafters understood that rights are a function of humanity, not legislation.

[shaayecanaan]

74. You'll have to do better than that...

The partition of India was consented to by both Indian National Congress (representing the Hindus) and the Muslim League (representing the Muslims, obviously). OTOH, The partition of Palestine was agreed to by the Jews, but imposed upon the Muslims.

As others have pointed out, I think that you have misstated what happened in the Indian subcontinent in 1947.

The partition of India was consented to by both Hindus and Muslims. The partition of Palestine was not. That is a crucial distinction, and my statement above remains true in its entirety.

The Jews were returning to their homeland, so they weren't colonists.

Returning after a 2000-year hiatus doesnt make you any less a colonist. The ancestors of paleolithic Europeans migrated to Europe from North Africa as recently as 10,000 years ago. That didn't make them any less colonists when they set out to colonise North Africa.

Second, the Jews bought land and were attacked by the Arabs before they ever took Arab land by force.

About 7% of Israel proper was purchased from Arabs. The rest was taken by force. I don't know what percentage of lands were bought from native Americans, but it couldnt be much less than that.

Third, the Native Americans did not go to war with the Europeans to prevent the creation of the United States.

What a positively stupid statement. Exactly how could the United States of America come about other than by the murder and dispossession of native Americans? What were the native Americans fighting against, if not the establishment of a foreign state on their land?

Finally, it is clear that the Arabs started the fighting with the Jews. It is nowhere near as clear that the Native Americans attacked first in every instance.

When did the Arabs "start the fighting"? If its as clear as you suggest, you shouldnt have any trouble supplying those details.

The American conception of rights is stated in the Declaration of Independence where it talks about inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

So the right to have an abortion, to possess an assault rifle, or to traffic alcoholic beverages across state borders without levy, isnt actually created by the Bill of Rights, but comes straight from the mouth of Yahweh? I must have missed Sunday school that day. You weren't homeschooled by any chance, were you?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Can't destroy Israel militarily? Do it politically.

As it was, so shall it be.

[oberliner]

9. So Israel is willing to talk to Hamas, but Hamas refuses to talk to Israel?

From the article:

The Hamas leader also said there had been several Israeli attempts to contact him, but he turned them down.

[bemildred]

21. I think the idea is that Fatah is supposed to do the talking.

And Hamas will support Fatah in that role. It's been said a few times that I remember. Of course lots of things get said ...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. Forget the legalistic talk. Does the state of Israel have a moral obligation to 700,000 refugees

it created in 1947.

Does it owe those victims no debt?

Is there NOTHING to discuss?

[Vegasaurus]

37. Do the Arab nations have a legal or moral obligation to the 850,000 Jews

that they expelled (or forced to leave or whatnot) in 1948?

If your answer is yes, then we have something to discuss.

[shaayecanaan]

49. Yes

Any Jewish person wanting to return to their ancestral homeland should be permitted to do so.

For the most part, Jews were not expelled from Arab countries post 1948. There were expulsions from Egypt following the 1956 war. Several Arab countries (Iraq and Morocco) attempted to prevent their Jewish populations from leaving. Iran has a similar policy today. Morocco is currently trying to encourage Jews to return there, without much success.

For the most part, Jews left because of unrest caused by violence, bombings of synagogues and so forth. It is still disputed whether some of these bombings were conducted by Zionists in order to prompt the migration of these Jews to Israel.

[Vegasaurus]

51. Wrong, wrong and wrong again

There was deliberate persecution of Jews in Syria Following Syrian independence from France in 1946, attacks against Jews and their property increased, culminating in the pogroms of 1947, which left all shops and synagogues in Aleppo in ruins. Thousands of Jews fled the country, and their homes and property were taken over by the local Muslims.

In Egypt (where should we start? Ramses II?)

Iraq before 1948? ll of this progress ended when Iraq gained independence in 1932. In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000.

Although emigration was prohibited, many Jews made their way to Israel during this period with the aid of an underground movement. In 1950 the Iraqi parliament finally legalized emigration to Israel, and between May 1950 and August 1951, the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government succeeded in airlifting approximately 110,000 Jews to Israel in Operations Ezra and Nehemiah. This figure includes 18,000 Kurdish Jews, who have many distinct traditions. Thus a community that had reached a peak of 150,000 in 1947 dwindled to a mere 6,000 after 1951.

Additional outbreaks of anti-Jewish rioting occurred between 1946-49. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionism became a capital crime.

or post 1948 Iraq:
Persecutions continued, especially after the Six-Day War in 1967, when many of the remaining 3,000 Jews were arrested and dismissed from their jobs.

Finally in Iraq all the Jews were forced to leave between 1948 and 1952 and leave everything behind. Jews were publicly hanged in the center of Baghdad with enthusiastic mobs as audiences.

The Jews were persecuted throughout the centuries in all the Arabic speaking countries. One time, Baghdad was one-fifth Jewish and other communities had first been established 2,500 years ago. Today, approximately 61 Jews are left in Baghdad and another 200 or so are in Kurdish areas in the north. Only one synagogue remains in Bataween, - once Baghdad's main Jewish neighborhood.

How about Algeria? On the eve of the civil war that gripped the country in the late 1950s, there were some 130,000 Jews in Algeria, approximately 30,000 of whom lived in the capital. Nearly all Algerian Jews fled the country shortly after it gained independence from France in 1962. Most of the remaining Jews live in Algiers, but there are individual Jews in Oran and Blida. A single synagogue functions in Algiers, although there is no resident rabbi. All other synagogues have been taken over for use as mosques.

In 1934, a Nazi-incited pogrom in Constantine left 25 Jews dead and scores injured. After being granted independence in 1962, the Algerian government harassed the Jewish community and deprived Jews of their principle economic rights. As a result, almost 130,000 Algerian Jews immigrated to France. Since 1948, 25,681 Algerian Jews have emigrated to Israel.

Shall I continue with Yemen, Morrocco, Tunisia, Libya?

There was a systematic effort to EXPEL Jews, using violence, persecution and murder, from all the Arab lands. Confiscation of property was common, and no, Jews were not in any way compensated for their loss of land, property, livelihoods.

To suggest that this was a Zionist "plot" is beyond ridiculous. Go read over on the 9/11 board, with the rest of the conspiracy nuts.

[shaayecanaan]

66. "For the most part, Jews left because of unrest caused by violence, bombings of synagogues"

I made the above statement, you posted a large amount of guff essentially confirming it, and then claimed that my post was incorrect. What part of the sentence above did you not understand?

I reiterate: officially sanctioned *expulsions* of Jews from Arab lands post 1948 was the exception, rather than the rule. Iraq and Morocco initially instituted policies aimed at *preventing* Jewish emigration. In the case of Morocco, only substantial pressure from the Israelis convinced the king to eventually allow Jewish emigration to Israel.

To suggest that this was a Zionist "plot" is beyond ridiculous. Go read over on the 9/11 board, with the rest of the conspiracy nuts.

So Professor Norman Stillman, chair of Judaic History at the University of Oklahoma, is a conspiracy nut? (His position is that the jury is still out on whether *some* of the synagogue bombings could be attributed to Zionists).

Go away. Read. Get a clue. Then come back.

[Vegasaurus]

77. Oh, so violence and bombings of synagogues

was not really a way to "expel" Jews.

Um. Right.

Do a little reading. There was a pan-Arab effort to rid every Arab country of Jews, and this began long before the state of Israel even came into existence.

[shaayecanaan]

78. Lets just go through this one more time...

Several countries such as Iraq and Morocco, passed laws aiming at *preventing* Jewish emigration.

Is that sinking in? Do I need to spell that out any clearer? Those countries were trying to *prevent* Jews from leaving. Otherwise, why would they have passed those laws?

Yes, there was violence, murders, unrest, and bombings. It is possible that some of the bombings were orchestrated by Zionists. At any rate, there is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest that the Iraqi government was behind the bombings. At any rate, do you really think that the same people who bombed the King David Hotel, assassinated a UN peace mediator, and recruited young Egyptian Jews to bomb targets in Egypt (the Lavon affair), would have any great reservations about bombing targets in Iraq?

Do a little reading. There was a pan-Arab effort to rid every Arab country of Jews, and this began long before the state of Israel even came into existence.

Here's a couple of questions for you - which was the only country in the world in the 1920s to have a senior cabinet minister who was Jewish? And which major capital city had the highest population of Jews, per capita?

And here are the answers, because frankly I don't expect you to know them: Iraq, whose first finance minister was Jewish, as well as the junior Minister of Justice who was Jewish as well. And Baghdad, whose population was 40% Jewish at the time.

And in relation to your "do a little reading" jibe, it seems to me to be quite apparent at this point in time which one of us is better read.

[kayecy]

53. Yes, of course........All refugees should have the right to return to the land where they were born.

[sabbat hunter]

41. I think

compensation should be substituted for right of return. Right of return would de facto destroy Israel.

Also Jerusalem was never supposed to be part of Palestine. So it is not part of their eventual state.
I think that the actual non starter and not the right of return. Compensation can be given by Israel in lieu of the right of return (as long as the jews thrown out of arab lands receive the same compensation)


Finally, I believe that Israel should pull out to the approximate green line, with adjustments made for security reasons. Other lands to compensate will be given to Palestine.

[Vegasaurus]

52. I think there should be compensation given to the Palestinians

who lost their homes and compensation to the Jews who lost theirs. About an equal number or Jews and Arabs left or were expelled, so each should be properly compensated.

The Palestinian compensation or right of return is no more of a right than the Jewish one.

[kayecy]

54. I agree.....has Israel offered to compensate the Palestinian refugees?

I agree......has Israel ever offered compensation?......Just because backward Arab dictatorships do not offer compensation that is not an excuse for Israel not to offer any.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Yes, Israel has.

But it has always been tied up within the framework of a larger peace agreement. No one expects the Arab states to pay restitution, that isn't a sticking point. Israel wants to make a one time payment to the government of a new Palestinian state as restitution, to be used as they see fit. But that would mean an official abandonment of a Palestinian right of return. Something that the Palestinian leadership is thus far unwilling to consider.

Israel did offer monetary compensation to Palestinian landowners who lost their property, but it came with a catch. That by accepting the restitution they abandon any future claim to the land and any right of return. So, even steven.

[kayecy]

72. You call that Israel making an an offer?

But it has always been tied up within the framework of a larger peace agreement.

So if fact no negotiations have yet taken place and no sums have been suggested.

If you are right, individual refugees are being held hostage until a larger peace agreement is concluded which may never happen.......Would you think you had been offered compensation if your house had been occupied by a potential buyer for 60 years and he told you he would negotiate compensation with you when your local council finally agreed to him building an extension?

[azurnoir]

59. Is one contingent on the other? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Isn't what Meshal is stating the basic position of the vast majority of Palestinians?

Nothing "radical" about this by any means.

This IS the Palestinian position.