Israel, Palestine and the Arab/Israel Conflict

can't answer without knowing what the "crisis" is, as the answer is not definite but variable depending on what the crisis is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes you can answer it. you just know if you do it will show you for the bigot you are.



you don't want to answer this question because you know your position of denying it to the palestinians is morally and legally wrong and answering this question will paint you in a bad a light.







unlike you I have no problem answering this question. yes all refugees have the right to chose either to return to the lands or resettle else where and receive a just and fair compensation for the property they aren't returning to.

I also believes this for all refugees no matter their religion, ethnicity, or nationality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, how far back in time do you want to go?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if they have resettled and built up a society their not refugees. ie. if they have already gone and intergrated and made arrangemnts than they and not still chaff in the wing than they are by definition not a refugee.


its a simple yes or no question why do you refuse to straight up answer it.

 

I decided to comment on this one first: you did answer my question, so I hazard that that means you could agree on some extenuating factors:

Weeelll...isn't this what the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank have done? They have permanent residences there and appear sufficiently integrated. Or were you referring to a specific subset in this general example?

 

As I explained the nature of the crisis dictates the answer, for the Palestinians "crisis" they can't go back. These aren't refuges of a natural disaster, these are refuges who were on the loser side of a war decades old, who own side won't accept the fact that they fucked them over and leave them stateless to be Israels problem.

Yeah that why I see you care so much talking about the poor Jews kicked out of Europe and Arabia.

 

which only shows you don't care about morality or the law. your essentially arueing that you have the right to decide if people should get their legal rights.

this is a new one they shouldn't get their right because rather than just accept the crimes against them they actually fought for their right. that fucked up even for you. also your little quibling is fucking irrelevant the law doesn't add qualifiers on who gets the right. ALL refugees get the right to return. also they didn't start the war. the fucking Israelis did.

when we have indecent "human beings", I call your humanity into question because you demand a people be stripped of legal rights simply because of who they are, like you arguing they should be stripped of their legal rights because of who they are I will. but no one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to go back to these place or to not receive compensation should they wish too. I defend their rights to do so as I have said on more than one occasion. unlike you I don't think who someone is should be grounds of taking away rights.

 

tell me how many off these do you also think should be stripped of their legal rights. I won't bother giving the context because someone who bitches about other refugees being ignored should know about them
refugee groups listed by designation(all made refugees with in the same time fram as the constant stream of palestinians refugees Israel creates)
Jewish
Eritrean
Ethiopian
Armenian
Chechen
Azerbaijanis
Algerians
Kurdish
Iraqi
Assyrian Christians
Afghani
Bangladeshi
Rohingya
Tibetan
Tamil
Kashmiri Pandit
Russian
Tajikistani
Meskhetian Turks
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Karen
Karenni
Arakanese
and a whole crap ton of african ethnicities. which off these oh wise sage who determines who gets their legal rights and doesn't which of these get them and which don't.

 

I guess that depends again how far back you want to go. :shrug: Are stripping someone's rights and not giving restitution the same thing?

 

if you going to answer the question just don't answer it. don't pretend its more complex than it is.

depends on the right. in this case demanding that the palestinians get money ans settle else where rather than go back to their properties in palestine is stripping them of a right because the right is a choice between going back to one lands or accepting just and fair compensation for that property.

 

You said yourself: once they've settled elsewhere and made infrastructure, they're not refugees. If you go far back enough, most people are refugees. How about Native Americans? They deserve their continent back too; it's just not reasonable to pile everyone out of here. Believe me, I wish it could be done. Fair is fair. The two sides are much counterbalanced in "right" as far as their history goes (moreso to one side than another, but that's where we disagree). In really one-sided cases, it's far worse. That's why the whole concept of "North America" really bothers me in a fundamental way.

Compensation would work from the practical perspective; or better than one-state, in my opinion.

But see? It is complex.

 

well I'm sorry I don't think it needs to be said that you cannot use a law for legal justifacation before it existed.

and that would be an arrogant assumption that you should make that choice instead of those whose legal right it is to make that.

No it isn't following the law is simple you see what it says than you do it. Its only complicated if you wish to ignore the law like you wish to.

 

How many here know that it was Arabs who made the Palestinans into refugees, not the Jews?

For a brief moment in history, the Palestinians had a state of their own. It was the first time that there was a Palestinian state to be governed by Palestinians.

That was back in 1947-1948 when the UN ended British control of the area & partitioned it into Jewish & Palestinian areas.

Five Arab nations started a war to take all of the territory, intending to oust the Jews. That was the end of the Palestinian state.

It is interesting to note that Jordan took over the entire West Bank Area & held it until they lost it to Israel in 1967. In almost 20 years of controlling the West Bank, Jordan never invited Palestininas to return. They annexed the West Bank & declared it to be part of Jordan.

The Jews did not make refugees out of the Palestinians. Their Arab brothers made them refugees.

I am an atheist raised in a Christian family. I spent about 15 months in Israel in 1960-1961 working for an American computer company. One of the people I became friendly with at that time was an Arab businessman who did not leave when the 1947-1948 war started.

He said he did not expect the Arabs to allow him to have his properties back if they won. He expected to be able to keep ownership if he stayed during the conflict, no matter who won. He was smarter than those who left to become refugees.

 

only people who don't their history and/or want the zionists held accountable for their actions "know" that.

 

What can I say I'm a pragmatist: I care more about ending the suffering then justice. I don't have the right to decide anything, but nations do, also the reason Palestinians can't return to Israel has nothing to do with fighting for their rights. Sure the law add qualfiers, like when the definition of the words change, like "crisis" and "refugee" getting ass kicked in war is not the same kind of crisis as say a natural disaster. Oh and the "fucking" Arabs stated it.

But you think its ok to take away the Israelis rights in return, that sounds like a "stripping of legal rights simply because of who they are". There are two people here, not just the Palestinians and "fucking" jews as you see it, they have competing needs and best solutions are ones that require sacrifices between both sides in order to satisfy the basic needs: israel need to accept the loss of the whole of the west bank and its water, or risk their hegemony by absorbing the west bank as full citizens, Palestinians need to accept they will never get back Israel.

 

Law is a shadow next to morality. But your benchmarks were "settlement and infrastructure". Is this not the case?

It is a practical choice; one-state cannot, in my opinion, work now.

You yourself gave the benchmarks for this case (above). You wish now to retract them?

 

All of us who were brought up on a steady diet of Hasbara history and ignore the fact that it was in 1919 during the King Crane Commission report that Americans assessed the situation and declared that the Zionist aim of dispossesing all non-Jewish peoples was detrimental to the future of Palestinian civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Crane_Commission

Some of us even go so far as to read the historical record of the Haganah as divulged by Israeli historians like Ilan Pappe and realise that the nakba began six months before the declaration of statehood by Israel.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670

Some of us are such extremists that we extend our efforts to actually reading the proposal of the Arab League presented in 1948, and discover *gasp* that they proposed that the only viable solution to the problem was a single democratic state with equal rights for all!

http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm

Its taken 60 years of occupation to prove both the Americans and Arabs right in their assessment of the issues. But the Israelis are getting there.

 

What exactly is "Hasbara" SAM? Can you describe it? Is it anything like Al Jazeera, or Albawaba?

Maybe the Israeli government should be more like India's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303390.html

Or should they be more like Palestine and their Nobel Price winners?

Yeah...we've had enough "Hasbara", we don't need anymore explanation!

 

not really a impure morality like yours doesn't hold a candle to a just a law.

not benchmarks guide lines. which don't come into play IMO if the agressor or remover refuses to let them exercise the right. for the refugee to lose the right it must be based on a conscious choice of his or her self to vacate the right. in othger wordws in cannot be forece upon some one.

probably not the jewish ISraeli would do something to spark of another conflict. though if we start slowly working there now which what I want we will get their. The whole diffuculty argument you use is a cop out as far as I am concerned.

I never presented them as bench marks but as guidelines. Please if you can't debate honestly just don't. The way your trying to use those guidelines would deny every refugee their right because a refugee camp would count.

 

Well, I will indeed read the King-Crane Commission report. Will you consider its conclusions in context of the history of the ME? To wit:

Hahah! Sorry:

Fox proposes equal coop with rights and space for all

Excuse me: we're meant to be requiring posters to be a bit more courteous, but that lesson seems to have gone right over your head.

Look, pj: if the best you can manage is insults, then you're done. You made the case that one doesn't consider refugees refugees once they've built permanent residences and developed infrastructure. This is the condition of the Palestinians now.

Hardly, since you were the one that proposed it.

You said nothing about "guidelines" in your post:

And we're back in the same old pattern as last time. Look, PJ: it's possible to debate and get caught out without ranting and raving and accusing other people of lying as often as you do. It helps if that's what they've actually done.