Israel...

[Zzarchov]

Palestinian "right of return" is unique because:

The UN helped create the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place and as a result shares responsibility with Israel for resolving it.

The UN has created many similar situations over the years, none of them have that distinction. Not Unique.

And in Palestine, it didn't help create anything. There was a war brewing, it tried to step in, everyone on both sides ignored it, and its plan shares no real similarity with the outcome.

The UN passed a resolution which recognized Israel on condition that it allow Palestinians right of return.

Yes, Palestinians, not Palestinian descendants.

Israel can withdraw from the Unitied Nations and return to its status of disputed territory if its unwilling or unable to meet the terms of its recognition.

The UN does not grant recognition to nations. Not all nations are members of the UN.

Switzerland only joined in 2002, are you saying it wasn't a nation before 2002? The Vatican still is not a member of the UN.

The UN is not a world government.

Is 61 years of Israeli non-compliance with the terms of UN recognition, continued ethnic cleansing and war long enough? How much longer should Palestinians wait for Israel and the UN to abide by their "obligations" regarding them?

Israel has no obligations to the UN, the UN did not enforce its partition plan, it loses say in the matter. Lots of people and organizations had partition plans that also didn't come to be.
They also don't get to assign conditions.

So, tell me your position:

Are you entitled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived there, at the expense of the current residents who were born there?

Or are you not entitled to lands you have never seen regardless of where your ancestors lived?

 

[earth_as_one]

Are you entitled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived there, at the expense of the current residents who were born there?

Or are you not entitled to lands you have never seen regardless of where your ancestors lived?

Apparently you are enttled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived their, at the expense of the current residents who were born there... if you are Jewish.

Even if its been thousands of years and hundreds of generations since one of your ancestors last set foot in Palestine, you still have the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians and kill the residents with impunity. You will even have the support of military super powers, provided you are Jewish and Israeli.

Even if your ancestors never originated from this area, as long as you convert to Judaism first, you have the same right to imigrate to Israel, become and Israeli citizen and kill Palestinians and ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine.

As a Jewish Israeli you can move into other peoples homes, sleep in their beds, toss their family portraits out with the trash, redecorate the house a little and its yours. As long as the former inhabitants weren't Jewish or Israeli.

Being Jewish and Israeli gives you the right to ignore UN resolutions, international treaties, trample people's fundamental human rights, lock them up in giant prisons, starve them, bomb them, commit war crimes, crimes against humanity.... You can even treat children this way. It doesn't matter as long as your victms aren't Jewish.

In order to justify your actions all you have to do is point to some passages in a religious book and accuse your adversaries of being terrorists. Your actions are completely justified regardless of how many lines of human decency you cross.... provided you are Jewish and Israeli.

But if you are Arab and Israeli, you better not complain about your treatment. Just be glad that you have can live in Israel for now...

13/01/2009
Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

By Shahar Ilan and Roni Singer-Heruti, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press

The Central Elections Committee (CEC) yesterday banned the Arab parties United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab MKs. Both parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Members of the CEC conceded yesterday that the chance of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties was slim.

Arab faction delegates in the CEC walked out of the hall before the vote, shouting, "this is a fascist, racist state." As they walked out, CEC deputy chairman MK David Tal (Kadima) and the Arab delegates pushed each other and a Knesset guard had to intervene and separate them...

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections - Haaretz - Israel News

While the chances of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties is slim, it will effectively prevent Israel's Arab population from having a voice in the next election.

 

[Zzarchov]

Apparently you are enttled to lands you have never seen because your ancestors lived their, at the expense of the current residents who were born there... if you are Jewish.

Thats not the question is it right, or is it not right. You seem to be saying it isn't right.

Well then, Palestinians have no "Right of Return". Or am I wrong and you DO have a right?

If they do, then nothing you say about the conception of Israel makes it wrong, if its ok for Arabs its ok for Hebrews.

Or its not ok as you seem to be implying, in which case it was wrong for the ancestors of modern Israelis and its wrong for the "Palestinian Refugees" who derail peace to claim some right.

You keep holding a double standard.

If it was wrong for Israelis of the past, it is still wrong now. If it is right now, it was right for the Israelis of the past.

There is no magic double standard.

As a Canadian, we go by the motto of Colonialism was wrong, but it happened, move on.

 

[earth_as_one]

What probably or might have happened 2000 years ago or is in a religious text should not be part of this equation.

What are you looking for Z? What's legal or moral? Sometimes the two are in conflict.

What Jews experienced in Nazi Europe under Hitler was immoral but legal according to Nazi laws at the time. But legality didn't help people at the Nuremburg trials did it?

When Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi arrived in Palestine, they did so illegally. But allowing these people to stay was moral.

The UN awarding Jewish refugees most of Palestine was legal, but immoral.

What Palestinians and their descendents have experienced at the hands Zionists since the UN awarded Jewish refugees most of Palestine isn't moral or legal.

Later when Israel became a country, Zionists passed laws making their actions legal in Israel. But it still didn't make their actions moral or legal internationally.

Israel has a legal obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes. That's international law as well as one of Israel's obligations as per the specific UN resolution which recognized Israel's existance.

Until Israel has met its legal obligations regarding the Palestinians the situation is like an unfulfilled contract. Israel is also legally and morally responsible for the damages resulting from their deliberate refusal to meet their legal obligations.

Dealing with the Palestinian refugee issue is also Israel's moral obligation.

The UN has passed a resolution every year since restating Israel's legal and moral obigations to Palestinians.

Allowing Israel to violate international laws for 60 years without consequences is immoral.

Allowing 4.5 million people to suffer indefinitely as nationless refugees is immoral and illegal.

Allowing Israel to continue its illegal ethnic cleansing without consequence is immoral.

If the Nazis had done what moral rather than what was legal, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Zzarchov]

Palestinian Refugees do no include the definition used by UNRWA (and only the UNRWA).

Also, there is no contract with the UN. IF there is, the UN never upheld their end of it.

East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation for 20 years. The UN is not a world authority nor does it claim to be.

Nations do not have to be part of the UN to be created, recognized or exist. Likewise the UN cannot force a nation out of existence. The UN gives its advice, thats it.

There is no right for the desendants of refugee's to have any claim to a land they have never known anymore than the descendants of Puritan refugees in North America have any right to return to europe.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Socrates--Cortez ,Pizarro greatly outnumbered like Israel defeated huge empires--so who is the threat -the Arabs with slingshots or Jews with with--
1.4 million Palestinians killed 9 Israelis--perhaps you need to rethink
-Israel attacked its neighbours not the other way around
-agreed Israel has not attacked Iran-it wants the USA to do it just like the USA attack on Iraq--so who is the threat?

The Christian population of Lebanon is particularly anxious to rid the country of the mainly Muslim Palestinians because of a fear that they threaten the delicate balance among the country's religious groups.
So, seeing such a dilemma facing the poor Gaza Palestinians, what is the remedy? to kill all 13 million Jews so the Arabs can give their disliked brothers the Israeli Land??
110 million Arabs, 13 million Jews, who is a threat to who? That is why defense is a right not a privilege, sure the Gaza Palestinians have the right to defense but their Arab brothers want to see them dead. Why blame the Jews.

If your people were out numbered 50 to 1 you will be dancing and singing a deferent song.

 

[darkbeaver]

Olmert’s Poodle

By Patrick J. Buchanan

January 18, 2009 "American Conservative" --- As Israel entered the third week of its Gaza blitz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regaled a crowd in Ashkelon with an astonishing tale.

He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.

The crowd loved it. Here is the background.

After intense negotiations with Britain and France, Secretary of State Rice had persuaded the Security Council to agree on a resolution calling for a cease-fire. But Olmert wanted more time to kill Hamas.

So, here, in Olmert’s words, is what happened next.

“In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone.’ They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now.’ He got off the podium and spoke to me.

According to Olmert, Bush was clueless.

“He said: ‘Listen. I don’t know about it. I didn’t see it. I’m not familiar with the phrasing.’”

“I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor. …

“She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor.”

The U.N. diplomatic corps was astonished when the United States abstained on the 14-0 resolution Rice had crafted and claimed her country supported. Arab diplomats say Rice promised them she would vote for it.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, with Rice at the United Nations during the debate on the resolution, said Olmert’s remarks were “just 100 percent, totally, completely untrue.”

But the White House cut Rice off at the knees, saying only that there were “inaccuracies” in the Olmert story. The video does not show Bush interrupting his speech to take any call.

Yet the substance rings true and is widely believed, and Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice’s face:

“He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for.
She was left pretty shamed. …”

With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance.

Yet public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud’s poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master.

Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel’s benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do.

And there are straws in the wind that, despite congressional resolutions giving full-throated approval to all that Israel is doing in Gaza, this is becoming a troubled relationship.

Two weeks ago, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in opposing any truce, assured the world there “is no humanitarian crisis in the (Gaza) Strip,” and the hum

 

[einmensch]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel should withdraw from nearly all territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war in return for peace with the Palestinians and Syria, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted Monday as telling a newspaper

That is what the Arab states offered to Israel in 2003. Took five years to sink in.
Israel realizes that it can't displace nor kill all the Palestinians.

 

[earth_as_one]

Z:

I believe your problem is that you are having a hard time understanding that peace will only come to this region with a morally correct and just solution. That means these people must have freedom and justice.

But since the concept of morality and justice eludes you Z, maybe this legal information will help answer your question:

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to carry out direct relief and works programmes for Palestine refugees. The Agency began operations on 1 May 1950. In the absence of a solution to the Palestine refugee problem, the General Assembly has repeatedly renewed UNRWA's mandate, most recently extending it until 30 June 2011...

UNRWA: overview

All UNRWA is responsible for is making sure these people's basic needs are met. They have no authority to resolve this problem. But they do identify the Palestinian refugee problem as unique and why.

UNRWA and the UNHCR are both UN agencies mandated by the international community to do specific jobs for refugee populations. UNRWA deals specifically with Palestine refugees and their unique political situation. One reason for the distinction is that in the main the UNHCR is mandated to offer refugees three options, namely local integration and resettlement in third countries or return to their home country – options which must be accepted voluntarily by refugees under UNHCR’s care. These are not feasible for Palestine refugees as the first two options are unacceptable to the refugees and their host countries and the third is rejected by Israel. Given this context, the international community, through the General Assembly of the United Nations, requires UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance pending a political solution.

UNRWA: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

A host country has to agree to accept their refugees. They have not.

Refugees have to agree to live in their host countries. They have not.

In such cases when the country of origin refuses to recognize the right of refugees to return home, they would face international sanctions and pressure until the problem is resolved. In this case, Israel is the exception.

Since Israel, the host nations and the UN has created this unique situation, the UN has been force to pass resolutions specific to the Palestinian refugee problem.

In these UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian refugee problem, the UN has recognized Palestinians as a "people" with "inalienable rights". One of which is their right to return to their homes and property.

For example:

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

....Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

...

A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974

A "people" is a different classification than a "person". A person can be a refugee, but a "people" is like a "nation" and includes descendants. Also if you notice the wording in section 5, these "people" have a right to regain their rights by "all means".

The Palestinian "people" probably have a legal UN charter right to use military force to regain rights illegally denied them by Israel.

The rights of the Palestinian "people" could be voided by a new UN or UNSC resolution. Until then previous resolutions remain legally binding.

 

[MHz]

As a Canadian, we go by the motto of Colonialism was wrong, but it happened, move on.

Actually it is more black-hearted than that, the Canadian Govt stonewalls every legal action the First Nations have taken in regards to treaties. The First Nations didn't break them the Canadian Govt did (at every opportunity). The cases cannot be allowed to run their course, the Fist Nations would win every single one of them, that would cost the Govt big money. The taxpayer would be on the hook for that cash, so when it comes to the rights of others being upheld it depends if it is going to cost some personal cash. Every taxpaying Canadian will say the First Nations should be more or less equal. Ask them if they should be compensated for broken treaties at the personal cost of $100,000 for each taxpayer and the support for rights goes up in smoke. If those same (not so lovely) people would be in court in a heartbeat if some lawyer approached them with an offer to sue somebody that would net them $100,000 free and clear.
Stealing land, resources, and decimating a local population is the hallmark of western civilization and paint themselves as being the victim.
How naive to think otherwise, to not see through the smoke and mirrors is willfull stupidity, a commodity that will never be in short supply.

The Truth About the Gaza Massacre « P U L S E

 

[earth_as_one]

Of course there is another " final solution" to the Palestinian "problem"... I'm sure Israel could pass a law and make it legal.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually it is more black-hearted than that, the Canadian Govt stonewalls every legal action the First Nations have taken in regards to treaties. The First Nations didn't break them the Canadian Govt did (at every opportunity). The cases cannot be allowed to run their course, the Fist Nations would win every single one of them, that would cost the Govt big money. The taxpayer would be on the hook for that cash, so when it comes to the rights of others being upheld it depends if it is going to cost some personal cash. Every taxpaying Canadian will say the First Nations should be more or less equal. Ask them if they should be compensated for broken treaties at the personal cost of $100,000 for each taxpayer and the support for rights goes up in smoke. If those same (not so lovely) people would be in court in a heartbeat if some lawyer approached them with an offer to sue somebody that would net them $100,000 free and clear.
Stealing land, resources, and decimating a local population is the hallmark of western civilization and paint themselves as being the victim.
How naive to think otherwise, to not see through the smoke and mirrors is willfull stupidity, a commodity that will never be in short supply.

The Truth About the Gaza Massacre « P U L S E

While I may not agree with your position, at least your position is consistent.

The question becomes, are people repsonsible for the deals of their ancestors? Our ancestors also swore eternal fielty to our feudal lords throughout all our children. We broke that treaty with our kings too. Of course if we upheld it then we would still be slaughtering "heathens" in our kings name, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As for natives, I think the native peoples should get to decide if they want to live up to the exact nature of those treaties or re-negotiate by a referendum.

If they want to uphold the exact terms and conditions, they should have that right. But if you read those treaties you'll notice there are alot of basic assumptions that just aren't in there, those were treaties imposed by force lets not forget and if upheld to the letter they aren't very pleasant to live under.

Of course my own personal view is that Natives Lands should be made in provincial equivalent governments, with democracy for the inhabitants (because I refuse to believe the inhabitants of those first nations wouldn't have switched from monarchy or despotism to Monarchy like everyone else in the world did in the same timeframe, many first nations had already begun switching to democracy before european contact)

 

[Zzarchov]

Of course there is another " final solution" to the Palestinian "problem"... I'm sure Israel could pass a law and make it legal.

And if they were going to they would have. And then you would be justifying their actions like you are with Hamas and the laws they passed that makes the final solution legal against Jews.

 

[Zzarchov]

Z:

I believe your problem is that you are having a hard time understanding that peace will only come to this region with a morally correct and just solution. That means these people must have freedom and justice.

But since the concept of morality and justice eludes you Z, maybe this legal information will help answer your question:



All UNRWA is responsible for is making sure these people's basic needs are met. They have no authority to resolve this problem. But they do identify the Palestinian refugee problem as unique and why.



A host country has to agree to accept their refugees. They have not.

Refugees have to agree to live in their host countries. They have not.

In such cases when the country of origin refuses to recognize the right of refugees to return home, they would face international sanctions and pressure until the problem is resolved. In this case, Israel is the exception.

Since Israel, the host nations and the UN has created this unique situation, the UN has been force to pass resolutions specific to the Palestinian refugee problem.

In these UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian refugee problem, the UN has recognized Palestinians as a "people" with "inalienable rights". One of which is their right to return to their homes and property.

For example:

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974


A "people" is a different classification than a "person". A person can be a refugee, but a "people" is like a "nation" and includes descendants. Also if you notice the wording in section 5, these "people" have a right to regain their rights by "all means".

The Palestinian "people" probably have a legal UN charter right to use military force to regain rights illegally denied them by Israel.

The rights of the Palestinian "people" could be voided by a new UN or UNSC resolution. Until then previous resolutions remain legally binding.

The problem with that, is its all bull****. Sorry, no easy way to put that.

The UN cannot "legally bind" anything. It does not supercede national sovereignty nor does it even comprise of all nations in the world.

The UN has no power to "legally" do anything. There is no special power here.

If the host country doesn't recognize the refugees, fine. But you know what? If a kid is born in that host country (even to illegal immigrant, refugee or tourist parents) guess where that kid is from?

Children of refugees are not refugees, even if the UNRWA would like to make it so. The children of refugees aren't refugees and don't get to choose their homeland.

Maybe I'd like to choose that Im still a refugee from Holland? Too bad, so sad. Thats the nature of human suffering and the terror of colonialism. Deal. Like the majority of the planet has.

Nothing is special about Palestine other than a bunch of nations keep pretending it is due to deep seated racism and arab nationalism and supremacy.

The type that drove the coptics from egypt, are attempting to drive the african's from Sudan, drive the Kurds from Iraq etc.

 

[MHz]

As for natives, I think the native peoples should get to decide if they want to live up to the exact nature of those treaties or re-negotiate by a referendum.

8O It is the Canadian Govt that is not living up to their original agreements.
The parts that benefited the First Nation were reneged on. That is why I say the Canadian taxpayer would support the First Nation's rights until it hit them in the pocketbook, at that point all support for their rights (including the right to sue) would vanish.

 

[MHz]

Maybe I'd like to choose that Im still a refugee from Holland? Too bad, so sad. Thats the nature of human suffering and the terror of colonialism. Deal. Like the majority of the planet has.

The Belfour Declaration did not come with a time limit, if you had an ancestor living in that area that got moved you have a claim.

Try being a little bit realistic, what kept your parents (I assume they were the head of the household) from returning. And just what made them refugees in the first place, the Dutch were never an intentionally targeted people.

 

[Zzarchov]

The Belfour Declaration did not come with a time limit, if you had an ancestor living in that area that got moved you have a claim.

Try being a little bit realistic, what kept your parents (I assume they were the head of the household) from returning. And just what made them refugees in the first place, the Dutch were never an intentionally targeted people.

Nothing kept the people who actually left from returning. But the Palestinian refugee issue is about children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.

The reason it took so long for them to be able to return that they could have children, grandchildren and great grandchildren is that even now the war isn't technically over. Not all the aggressor nations have made peace even now.

 

[einmensch]

Israel the Motherland-is Mother dying?

Emigration from Israel exceeds immigration, report

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
04/20/2007




Tel Aviv (dpa) - In Israel, the number of emigrants exceeded the number of immigrants for the first time in 20 years, the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot reported Friday.
Many emigrants were recent arrivals who wanted to leave Israel again, the report said. In 2007, 14,400 immigrants are expected in Israel while 20,000 people are expected to leave the country, according to the report based on figures for the first months of 2007.
The last time emigration exceeded immigration was in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and in 1983 and 1984 when inflation was high.
Meanwhile the Maariv newspaper reported that approximately a quarter of the Israeli population was considering emigration.
Almost half of the country's young people were thinking of leaving the country, the report said. Their reasons included dissatisfaction with the government, the education system, a lack of confidence in the political ruling class and concern over the security situation.











Even so, most Soviet Jews chose Israel as the last resort when they couldn’t get into the US, Australia, or Germany. Israeli state brainwashed young Israelis to eradicate religiosity and radical nationalism, and left the generation with no strong attachment to the land of Israel. Jews of the Diaspora look at Israel with awe, but for many Israelis the Promised Land is banality.

 

[einmensch]

There are 436,000 Israeli children that are poor with the poverty level among non-Jews almost doubling over Jews. The striking statistic of almost 171,000 children were living in difficult economic circumstances in 1997 with their entire family's income based on welfare.
(Arabs are treated just the same as Jews in Israel -Yeh right!)

The Zionist regime's cabinet has approved the budget draft of 2008 with a rise of $1.1b in defense spending.

After hours of discussion, the cabinet supported by ministers of prime minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party, the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party and pensioners' party, voted 21-5 in favor of the budget.

Olmert rejected all calls for sharp spending boosts saying that fiscal discipline is essential especially during a time where there are some signs of instability in the global economy.

The military gets the lion's share of the budget with the allocation of $11.8b, including $2.4b of annual aid from the United States, which could increase to more than 3 billion by next year.

Rather than peace which was offered 5 years ago, Israel plans to spend $2000 for every man, woman and child in Israel to siege Gaza, attack and control occupied portions of other countries and begs for charity to feed the poor. Hey wait--for a family of 8 that is $16,000-$160,000 in 10 years-

 

[einmensch]

Zz--stop diverting--Israel is the topic-your mind wanders-Zzzzzzzzzzzzz wake up!