|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Resettling millions of refugees and their descendents in Israel seems like punishment for both them and Israel. Yet that is what the solution to the refugee problem that we are being told is the most just one is, because I have not a single relevant country commit to both the Right of Return and to providing citizenship to the refugees or descendents who wish to stay there. drat South Africa, if you had only had the stones to hold onto the bantustans for just a decade longer, magically letting people return to the homes you stole from them becomes unjust punishment of innocent whites. E: If you think states should be morally obligated to allow refugees to settle and gain citizenship and integrate then I agree, but then I don't understand your resistance to holding Israel to the same standard. You're not asking Israel to do any more than you're asking other states to do, except of course there's the additional fact that Israel is responsible for expelling the refugees in the first place. E2: And crocodile tears for the refugees who don't want to return is pretty rich, since giving them the right doesn't mean forcing them. If it's not in their best interest to go, they can decide that for themselves, they don't need you to ban them from the country for their own good. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Sep 2, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Resettling millions of refugees and their descendents in Israel seems like punishment for both them and Israel. Yet that is what the solution to the refugee problem that we are being told is the most just one is, because I have not a single relevant country commit to both the Right of Return and to providing citizenship to the refugees or descendents who wish to stay there. Please see: Neurolimal posted:Uh, i'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what's being said here. You do realize that Right of Return is not mandatory, right? That's why it is not called Mandate of Return. If it's a punishment to the refugees, they don't have to do it and would be due compensation instead to make up for the land and property lost in the ethnic cleansing. If it's a punishment to the people of Israel, then I don't really care because I can't think of any reasonable view by which it would be seen to be a punishment. The rationale used by the Arab countries for denying citizenship would disappear (That they don't wish to weaken the right of return by making the status quo a comfortable normality) and they should offer citizenship to the refugees. If they don't do this then political pressure can be placed on the countries in question to grant those rights. It's also likely that the new Palestinian state would absorb a good number of the refugees. In the Camp David negotiations (or negotiations around that time at least, don't have books in front of me) Arafat agreed to accept a very limited return of refugees to Israel on the basis that the Palestinian state would be able to take in a lot of the refugees itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:drat South Africa, if you had only had the stones to hold onto the bantustans for just a decade longer, magically letting people return to the homes you stole from them becomes unjust punishment of innocent whites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:drat South Africa, if you had only had the stones to hold onto the bantustans for just a decade longer, magically letting people return to the homes you stole from them becomes unjust punishment of innocent whites. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, aren't bantustans. They are (or were until recently) sovereign nations who chose to treat refugees and their descendents as second-class citizens if any, and as far as you are concerned, should keep doing so in perpetuity, to stave off the possibility of Israeli Jews maybe benefiting from a crime committed long before most of them were born.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Now you're just making up views and attributing them to me. Egypt et al should not be keeping them stateless in perpetuity, but whether they do or not doesn't excuse Israel doing the same. You agree that the Arab states should be expected to assimilate the Palestinians regardless of what Israel does or doesn't do, so at least be consistent and hold Israel to the same standard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:If it's a punishment to the refugees, they don't have to do it and would be due compensation instead to make up for the land and property lost in the ethnic cleansing. If it's a punishment to the people of Israel, then I don't really care because I can't think of any reasonable view by which it would be seen to be a punishment. It seems far more likely to me that those states will put pressure on those Palestinians to choose to resettle in Israel and leave. And since the amount of pressure that has been put upon those countries by anybody else in this regard has been zero so far, as people are perfectly happy to subsume any mistreatment of these refugees under the shield of "it's actually Israel's fault so whatever", I don't see any reason to see international pressure rising. In any event, there is no reason to expect a responsible Israeli regime to accept any kind of agreement that is basically dependent upon its success on other countries which aren't party to the agreement, with the hopes of future pressure leading to better results maybe. quote:It's also likely that the new Palestinian state would absorb a good number of the refugees. In the Camp David negotiations (or negotiations around that time at least, don't have books in front of me) Arafat agreed to accept a very limited return of refugees to Israel on the basis that the Palestinian state would be able to take in a lot of the refugees itself. Once a state is sovereign, it can make its own decisions about immigration. A sovereign Palestinian state would be able to allow as many Palestinian refugees as it likes to immigrate/repatriate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now you're just making up views and attributing them to me. Egypt et al should not be keeping them stateless in perpetuity, but whether they do or not doesn't excuse Israel doing the same. Palestinians who are from inside the Green Line are Israeli citizens. I even voted for a party led by Palestinians in the last Israeli elections. As for the Palestinians Israel has under military rule, Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, allowing Palestinians to form their own state, or they should run a plebiscite on annexation with full citizenship rights, assuming they can convince the UN that this is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Once a state is sovereign, it can make its own decisions about immigration. A sovereign Palestinian state would be able to allow as many Palestinian refugees as it likes to immigrate/repatriate. Except you don't believe this, you accept only Israel's right to make its own decisions about immigration, and insist the Arab countries must assimilate anyone Israel chose to kick out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Palestinians who are from inside the Green Line are Israeli citizens. This is circular, since the reason refugees from modern-day Israel aren't Israeli citizens is because of their expulsion. I guess it is very convenient if you kick people off their land and then start handing out citizenships to those who remain but I don't think that nullifies the new state's obligation to those who formerly lived within its borders, do you? Absurd Alhazred posted:As for the Palestinians Israel has under military rule, Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, allowing Palestinians to form their own state, or they should run a plebiscite on annexation with full citizenship rights, assuming they can convince the UN that this is acceptable. They should but I don't see how this affects the Right of Return, you're still making the refugees someone else's problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It seems far more likely to me that those states will put pressure on those Palestinians to choose to resettle in Israel and leave. And since the amount of pressure that has been put upon those countries by anybody else in this regard has been zero so far, as people are perfectly happy to subsume any mistreatment of these refugees under the shield of "it's actually Israel's fault so whatever", I don't see any reason to see international pressure rising. In any event, there is no reason to expect a responsible Israeli regime to accept any kind of agreement that is basically dependent upon its success on other countries which aren't party to the agreement, with the hopes of future pressure leading to better results maybe. This isn't a 'responsible' Israeli regime though. And delaying any kind of deal that would improve Palestinian lives until a bunch of other countries that didn't create the situation agree on a solution is just a red herring tactic Israel uses to justify not doing anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except you don't believe this, you accept only Israel's right to make its own decisions about immigration, and insist the Arab countries must assimilate anyone Israel chose to kick out. I think that Arab countries have a right to have really lovely immigration policies, but it makes sense for Israeli policy makers to refuse to implement a Palestinian right of return if those policies aren't addressed properly. And I think pressure applied to Israel to take up its side of it is going to be useless unless the other side of this equation is addressed. Furthermore, if it's successful for some reason, it will lead to disaster, as in a Syria/Iraq situation except a bit further West, and it isn't unreasonable for Israeli policymakers to reject it for that reason, and the Israeli public can easily be convinced to accept economic and cultural hardship, if that is the alternative. If that's not a good enough reason, let's take a step back, and go to the original language in UNGA 194, it says: 11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations; (my bold) Since Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc, as well as volunteers from all the way from Morocco to Pakistan invaded Palestine in that war, they are also Governments and authorities responsible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Israel shouldn't wait for the other states to do the right thing, and neither should the other Arab states wait for Israel to do the right thing. That kind of thinking is why these refugees have remained stateless for 60 years, both sides use the other side's inaction to justify their own. But let's engage the hypothetical: what if the Arab states agreed to assimilate their refugees, would you support a Right of Return for refugees who wish?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Israel shouldn't wait for the other states to do the right thing, and neither should the other Arab states wait for Israel to do the right thing. That kind of thinking is why these refugees have remained stateless for 60 years, both sides use the other side's inaction to justify their own. Me? Yeah, definitely. Right of return for the refugees who wish, compensation for those who don't, and for those who do but who no longer have access to their old property, whether because it has been destroyed or expropriated. I'd be happy if Israel decided on that unilaterally, even.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Furthermore, if it's successful for some reason, it will lead to disaster, as in a Syria/Iraq situation except a bit further West
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:What's your reasoning for this? If the vast majority of the Jewish Israeli public is hostile to the idea of another ethnic group coming in, and is yet forced to in some way to accept that, then I am expecting a civil war, because current Jewish-Arab relations are terrible, and even if that is solely due to past and present Israeli policies, this isn't something that is going to just go away just like that. Much like in Syria and Iraq, relative inter-ethnic stability is currently being maintained by suppressive force, not by an organic cooperation of the various ethnic groups, although I think that this is what the party I voted for would like to eventually change, and inside the Green Line, I think Jewish-Arab relations are really good, at least on the scale of that region (and Eastern Europe). (I am simplifying since "Arab" is made up of Druze, several populations of Bedouins, and of course Palestinians)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It seems far more likely to me that those states will put pressure on those Palestinians to choose to resettle in Israel and leave. And since the amount of pressure that has been put upon those countries by anybody else in this regard has been zero so far, as people are perfectly happy to subsume any mistreatment of these refugees under the shield of "it's actually Israel's fault so whatever", I don't see any reason to see international pressure rising. In any event, there is no reason to expect a responsible Israeli regime to accept any kind of agreement that is basically dependent upon its success on other countries which aren't party to the agreement, with the hopes of future pressure leading to better results maybe. Well they are under pressure, just not a huge amount. People in this very thread, have talked about how they should take on more refugees to give you the kind of idea of what people who will typically be activists think and the usual organisations have pointed out the issues for refugees. So it's more: Why isn't there an equivalent level of pressure on other countries to settle the refugees? The answer to this is why would there be. The Arab nations actually aren't under an obligation to resettle the refugees. To help prevent Israels occupation and ethnic cleansing from being accepted as the status quo (along with other reasons) the convention of the status of refugees from 1951 was not ratified by the surrounding Arab nations. This followed the basic morality of someone responsible for a war crime being the person who should sort out the aftermath of it and help clean it up. Now not having signed up to the treaty does not stop refugees from being integrated into their nation of residence and integration does not stop refugees from having the right of return. Jordan, for instance who probably has one of the better track records with dealing with the refugees, isn't a signatory and and has integrated large numbers of refugees who still have the right to return. This isn't universal, even within Jordan, and many refugee's lives are poverty stricken and bereft of the rights accorded to citizens of their resident country. Ideally they would be granted full rights akin to citizenship without being classified as citizens so there is no quibbling over refugee status which they could still maintain. This doesn't happen and is absolutely shameful on the Arab nations part. It's also a fundamental part of ongoing negotiations, which don't take place in a vacuum. However this gives us three key reasons why Israel should be the focus for settling refugees: 1) They're responsible for the ethnic cleansing and allowing a nation responsible for ethnic cleansing to get exactly what they want out of the situation is perverse. 2) Unlike with Israel there is no widely accepted legal rationale for the Arab states accepting the refugees. UNSC 242 is considered to put the onus on Israel in that regard. The leverage isn't there to support it. 3) The right of the return is a key part of the peace process. Compromises may very well be possible in terms of the right of return and they have been accepted in principle by Palestinian negotiators previously. However unilaterally taking this pressure off the table weakens the Palestinian position against an opposing sides whose entire rationale seems to be based around trying to accrue more 'facts' in there favour over time so any eventual compromise is fatally weakened. Now against this you have a single point of: 4) The refugees are in need and are in an awful way and nations should be morally accountable to look after those in need regardless of any perceived moral accountability of a criminal government or international legal obligation or what have you. And the thing is I totally 100% agree with that point. I would support my country, the UK, taking in Palestinian refugees. Hell, Syrian refugees or any other refugees fleeing harm or without citizenship too. I don't want to see or be responsible for or complicit in allowing them to suffer. The thing is point 4 applies to any nation on earth, including Israel. It's just as easy for Israel to alleviate their plight. Easier even, because points 1, 2 and 3 apply uniquely to Israel! It would be good if any nation took responsibility for helping out the refugees, but if you're going to choose any nation then I can see no reason why taking into account points 1, 2 and 3 you wouldn't focus on Israel quote:Once a state is sovereign, it can make its own decisions about immigration. A sovereign Palestinian state would be able to allow as many Palestinian refugees as it likes to immigrate/repatriate. Yes, and what I'm saying is that based on the peace negotiations which unfortunately doesn't succeed, it looks like what a sovereign Palestinian state likes in terms of immigration would account for many of the refugees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Well they are under pressure, just not a huge amount. People in this very thread, have talked about how they should take on more refugees to give you the kind of idea of what people who will typically be activists think and the usual organisations have pointed out the issues for refugees. You are talking as if all of the people considered "refugees" were kicked out of the Green Line or whatnot. That isn't the case. This was the case for a few decades after the Nakba, but right now the vast majority of "refugees" are actually descendents of refugees who have never set foot in Israel, and who have been already living in these other countries. And yet these countries use the excuse that they are descendents of refugees to bar them from even having residency. You are also talking as if Israel did not accept refugees. But in the decades following independence Israel took up a large amount of Jewish refugees from some of the same countries holding Palestinians as non-citizens. And despite systematic racism towards them as inferior to Ashkenazi Jews, they were granted immediate citizenship, they spent a relatively short time in refugee camps, and they and their descendents form half of the Jewish Israeli population, with quite a few seats in the Knesset and ministries, although there has yet to be a Mizrahi PM (there already has been one President, but he ended up being convicted of rape, so maybe not a good example). Finally, equating Palestinian expulsion from Israel to the Jewish expulsion from Arab and Muslim countries is actually unfair to Israel, because the former was in no way as total as the latter. 20% of the citizens of Israel today are Palestinians and/or Arabs. They are not treated nearly as well as they should, which the party I voted for among other things is set to remedy, but this is in no way comparable to the near-complete eradication of the Jewish communities in Egypt and Iraq. So no, I don't think that Israel is deserving of greater pressure in this regard. To go back to the start of your response, I am not really impressed by how a few posters here are willing to give lip-service to the horrendous policies of Arab regimes towards their Palestinian populations, after this was brought up by others. The fact of the matter is that this side of the issue has and is systematically neglected by pro-Palestinians, and to tie back to Israeli responses and to Israeli policies, it's very easy for Israeli Jews and their elected policymakers to conclude that this complete one-sidedness is driven by hatred of Jews. The pattern that emerges is that only Jewish crimes against Arabs matter, while no crimes by Arabs against Jews matter to anyone other than an excuse for racist Jews, and that this is fundamental to pro-Palestinian politics. Is it any surprise they would prefer to side with those promising a Jewish Israel security and safety?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Wait. You're claiming that because these Arab states invaded Palestine (at least partially) in order to put an end to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, they are thus responsible for the ethnic cleansing they attempted to end? It's one thing to criticize Arab governments for not treating refugees better(I don't think most people here or in the pro-Palestinian movement in general are big fans are Arab dictatorships), but the simple fact is that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by Israel(or by the forces which would months later constitute the Israeli state) and no one else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Further, South Africa is a nation committed to the values of racial equality. South Africa is the homeland of all Whites, no matter their race. To imply that South Africa is all Afrikaner, as you have, is to speak from a position of ignorance to your own priviledge. Indeed. I have no idea how anyone could possibly find a logical flaw in that reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Wait. You're claiming that because these Arab states invaded Palestine (at least partially) in order to put an end to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, "At least partially", for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If the vast majority of the Jewish Israeli public is hostile to the idea of another ethnic group coming in, and is yet forced to in some way to accept that, then I am expecting a civil war, because current Jewish-Arab relations are terrible, and even if that is solely due to past and present Israeli policies, this isn't something that is going to just go away just like that. Much like in Syria and Iraq, relative inter-ethnic stability is currently being maintained by suppressive force, not by an organic cooperation of the various ethnic groups, although I think that this is what the party I voted for would like to eventually change, and inside the Green Line, I think Jewish-Arab relations are really good, at least on the scale of that region (and Eastern Europe). But if the party you vote for were in control and could ratchet down the siege mentality and racism, this wouldn't be the case anymore. I'm with you when you say activists should be willing to work with parties within Israel. I just think if it is done properly, refuge right of return could be handled peacefully.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:But if the party you vote for were in control and could ratchet down the siege mentality and racism, this wouldn't be the case anymore. I'm afraid that that's very unlikely. As in, I don't see a process where with the beliefs and values most of the Jewish Israeli public has, they would get to the point where enough of them would vote for the party I voted for, which is predominantly lead by Palestinians, and is a weird coalition of Arab progressives, nationalists, communists (which is where the one Jewish MK comes from), and Islamists. You should have heard people's responses when I said I would do so. Even some radical leftists wouldn't vote for them due to the sexism and homophobia of some of the members; instead they voted for Meretz, who I do not think support an implementation of the Right of Return, at least according to those I've spoken to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:He's probably not. If you are, citations would be welcome. In the real world, nation-states don't act for entirely selfless reasons. Obviously, there were other objectives at play other than an end to the ethnic cleansing. But that doesn't matter: the Arab states invaded long after the ethnic cleansing had begun, roughly 5 weeks after the Deir Yassim massacre. And there's no question that the ongoing ethnic cleansing had galvanized Arab public opinion and encouraged the Arab states to act. In the cablegram announcing their invasion, the Arab states say: quote:Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem. Now, argue all you want about whatever the invasion was justified but to claim that the Arab states are responsible for something that began before the invasion and which was a significant cause of the invasion is absurd and seeks only to absolve Israel of its crimes. The fact that the motives of the Arab League might not have been as pure as freshly-fallen snow(what nation's motives are?) does not change anything or justify Israel's behavior(or the behavior of Zionist militia and terrorist groups.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You are talking as if all of the people considered "refugees" were kicked out of the Green Line or whatnot. That isn't the case. This was the case for a few decades after the Nakba, but right now the vast majority of "refugees" are actually descendents of refugees who have never set foot in Israel, and who have been already living in these other countries. And yet these countries use the excuse that they are descendents of refugees to bar them from even having residency. I'm aware of the status of the refugees and that many of them weren't born in Palestine. I'm guessing based on your scare quotes around the word "refugees" that you don't accept them as actual refugees. You don't give a reason for this, but presumably it's that old urban myth about how hereditary refugee status is a special privilege accorded just to Palestinians which shows how their treatment is biased against Israel and why they have a special agency (UNRWA) as opposed to the agency which deals with other refugees (UNHCR). This is completely wrong and hereditary status is actually how every single refugee in the entire world is treated. To quote the agency responsible in a release handily entitled EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES: quote:It is often said that UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem by granting refugee status through the generations and that handing the refugees over to UNHCR would not allow this. Is this the case? All refugees have the same key rights as Palestinian refugees, including the heritability of refugee status. A good thing to, I mean the entire idea that because someone is born stateless they're therefore without basic human rights seems absurd and would leave people in the most desperate situations with no protection. Also I'm aware that Israel accepted refugees. In fact it shows a remarkable willingness to accept immigration in general, it's appeal to the millions of Jews living outside Israel to come and live their still being held out. However, that they are willing to offer help and assistance to Jewish refugees in no way effects either of my three points. They still committed ethnic cleansing which resulted in the refugees we're discussing, they are still under an obligation to create a just solution and someone else taking them would still benefit their obstructionist peace policy. Not only that but their acceptance of Jewish refugees is devoid of context. It is part and parcel of their strive for a much religious and racial purity as possible and is the other side of the coin of their policy of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. The rationale behind it is to be deplored. Where you say "Finally, equating Palestinian expulsion from Israel to the Jewish expulsion from Arab and Muslim countries is actually unfair to Israel" is where I'd say you go completely off the rails. Your analysis is based exclusively on the fact that Israel didn't expel all of the Palestinians. Firstly, neither did the Arab countries (who were hardly a homogeneous entity with a united policy.) Some countries carried out campaigns of ethnic cleansing while others were simply not great places to live and Jews emigrated of their own accord, so the Arab countries didn't expel all the Jews either (although this was ethnic cleansing, so lets call it that). However it seems ridiculous metric to measure it by anyway. Rather than looking at the suffering of the people we are actually concerned about now or legal obligations or anything like that, we instead judge everything by the motives of long dead people 70 years ago? Why should this be considered as the standard we should measure by which overrides everything else? I don't buy it and frankly I don't even understand why I or anyone else would even consider doing so. Finally, If "Israeli Jews and their elected policymakers" want to see this kind of argument as being about anti-Semitism then gently caress them because that's an incredibly dishonest stance to take. I stand by my points and would defend them in an argument, but I'm happy to accept that other points of views which aren't hidden veils for anti-arab racism legitimately exist. If people are going to turn around and essentially say they are not going to take an argument in good faith, that they will not believe the presented rationales and that the argument is inherently driven by racism then the issue is with them and their stance is unreasonable The conception that the person who commits a crime is the person responsible for it is a core concept of justice, both legal and moral, worldwide. If they can't accept that an argument so fundamental to the conception of justice is made in good faith then they're clearly the kind of knee-jerk Zionists that will use it to defend anything and there's nothing that can be done about them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Resettling millions of refugees and their descendents in Israel seems like punishment for both them and Israel. Yet that is what the solution to the refugee problem that we are being told is the most just one is, because I have not a single relevant country commit to both the Right of Return and to providing citizenship to the refugees or descendents who wish to stay there. It's almost like they don't want the refugees any more than Israel does, for exactly the same reasons. Besides, there was apparently no problem when people who had been living in Palestine for generations with the legal right to live there were kicked out to be someone else's problem. Nor, apparently, is there any problem with Israel not granting citizenship to the Palestinians living in Israeli-controlled territory. It's pretty crappy that the Arab countries are not granting full equality to every Palestinian - but, at worst, that only makes them almost as bad as Israel. Forcing the countries which accepted the refugees to keep them forever also sets a highly problematic precedent for future refugee crisises, other than the one everyone already brings up already: it would vindicate Iraq, which refused to accept significant numbers of Palestinian refugees in the first place and held fast to the extremely limited quota that had previously existed for Palestinian immigration. While other countries generously allowed large numbers of refugees to stream over their border temporarily to flee the war, Iraq held fast and turned away massive numbers of terrified Palestinians fleeing war, destruction, and ethnic cleansing. It's hard enough to get countries to accept refugees as it is; if international law establishes a right to citizenship based solely on residing in a country as a refugee long enough, then no country will ever accept refugees ever again. It's not just rewarding the country that expelled the refugees in the first place, it also rewards the countries that were callous enough to reject the refugees completely, which is a nasty precedent to set and will make things much worse for the next major refugee crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:So the existence of Israel is dependent upon human rights violations? That doesn't seem like a very good plan migf Yes, the holocaust gave rise to the existance of the Jewish state so that "never again" would have a standing army to back it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, the holocaust gave rise to the existance of the Jewish state so that "never again" would have a standing army to back it up. ZIonists were already in Israel in force and planning to ethnically cleanse the population prior to the holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:No it isn't. In apartheid south africa the people being discriminated against were in a different country, not "South Africa Proper", but the various Bantustans. Which is why it is entirely appropriate to make the comparison, as the west bank has been carved up into various bantustan-like entities whose inhabitants are given less rights than those who actually rule them. Unless Israel has the right to annex them then they're a distinct, separate country. ANIME AKBAR posted:You can't honestly believe that resettling refugees in Israel is meant primarily to be some sort of punishment to Jews. Are you even capable of empathizing with Palestinian refugees? It's a violation of Israel's sovereignty and they would in all likelihood be hostile. This has nothing to do with empathy, because if it did then you'd give a poo poo about Israeli concerns about refugees. It's about what makes sense, and is realistic to happen, Israel will never agree to more than a symbolic number of refugees nor should they. The states that ethnically cleansed Mizrahim should absorb Palestinian refugees, as they in large will never be permitted to return. It's India/Pakistan style population exchange with one side refusing to hold up their end. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
In non-three-generation-old ethnic cleansing news: Gaza set to be "uninhabitable" within five years Living conditions in Gaza are so bad that they've been described as "less than human" and potentially uninhabitable by 2020, the UN said Tuesday. The warning comes from the UN trade and development agency, UNCTAD, in its report into the Palestinian economy. In addition to severe crises linked to water and electricity shortages, the UN agency says that Gaza's 1.8 million residents have yet to recover from the destruction of last year's conflict with Israel. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Unless Israel has the right to annex them then they're a distinct, separate country. A colony that the colonizing country rules over and has 600,000 settlers in is not really "distinct and separate", even if apartheid doesn't apply to colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's a violation of Israel's sovereignty and they would in all likelihood be hostile. This has nothing to do with empathy, because if it did then you'd give a poo poo about Israeli concerns about refugees. It's about what makes sense, and is realistic to happen, Israel will never agree to more than a symbolic number of refugees nor should they. The states that ethnically cleansed Mizrahim should absorb Palestinian refugees, as they in large will never be permitted to return. It's India/Pakistan style population exchange with one side refusing to hold up their end. My Imaginary GF posted:Depending upon the refugees, it is either the reason for Israel's existance, or the most insideous method to destroy Israel and create havoc in the mideast. Don't quote my posts migf ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In non-three-generation-old ethnic cleansing news: Don't take this as sass, but I want to give you some feedback: You're overall very civil and earnest in your arguments in this thread, even when your positions are at odds with many of the other posters, but sometimes you have a way of inadvertently saying something that seems very dismissive of the Palestinian side of the issue, and I think it can sometimes push people to think you're not arguing in good faith. I know that you didn't intend to be dismissive with your post, because the rest of the post is literally about a huge problem in Gaza, but this particular sentence is a very good example of a poor choice of words that makes you seem dismissive. I just thought I'd point it out because your debate in the last couple of pages has been interesting but I'm seeing a couple posters getting frustrated with it because of some squidgy phrasing like this. That said, thanks for making an effort to actually be engaged and balanced as a moderator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Don't take this as sass, but I want to give you some feedback: It was a poor choice of segue. I'll definitely take this into consideration. Normally I would ask that this feedback be given through PM's, but you don't have platinum, so thanks for providing it in any case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In non-three-generation-old ethnic cleansing news: Yeah, I posted some quotes from this last page Having taken the time to read the report more fully by now, it's not even Protective Edge which has done this. Gaza being uninhabitable was the suggestion from 2012 if the trends of the time continued. Since then Protective Edge caused massive damage to the Gazan infrastructure and everything is significantly worse (for instance the 2012 report assumed this would happen even with GDP grown and basic services like electricity and water in place and not blown to poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:This is completely wrong and hereditary status is actually how every single refugee in the entire world is treated. Really? Well I guess we'd better clear out "Judea and Samaria" so those Jewish refugees can finally go home. Unless you want to excuse or diminish the crimes of Nebuchadnezzar II. quote:The conception that the person who commits a crime is the person responsible for it is a core concept of justice, both legal and moral, worldwide. If they can't accept that an argument so fundamental to the conception of justice is made in good faith then they're clearly the kind of knee-jerk Zionists that will use it to defend anything and there's nothing that can be done about them. You realize that the persons responsible for the creation of Israel(and let's not even unpack your insistence that Israel's very existence is a crime) are dead? Or are you also suggesting that the guilt is passed down as a hereditary status too? Do Israeli Jews bear some sort of blood guilt for the Nabka?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
I am no antiquities expert, bu I am pretty sure Nebuchadnezzar wasn't a signatory to any UN treaties, so bringing him up like you think fuckin ancient Babylon is a counterargument to modern international law might be the dumbest thing I have read all day and I have been catching up on the freep thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Really? Well I guess we'd better clear out "Judea and Samaria" so those Jewish refugees can finally go home. Unless you want to excuse or diminish the crimes of Nebuchadnezzar II. A basic principle of all law is that you don't apply it retroactively. The Native Americans, for instance, don't have a legal claim to the land they were ethnically cleansed from even though it was certainly a moral wrong. Unless you are saying that Jews or Israelis or Jewish Israelis deserve special treatment that no other race, religion or state gets, Israel being held responsible for war crimes is fair and consistent. quote:You realize that the persons responsible for the creation of Israel(and let's not even unpack your insistence that Israel's very existence is a crime) are dead? Or are you also suggesting that the guilt is passed down as a hereditary status too? Do Israeli Jews bear some sort of blood guilt for the Nabka? The ethnic cleansing created that was planned and executed by Israel to form a more racially and religiously pure state was a crime, not simply creating a state. International law covers states, not just individuals within those states. Germany, for instance, paid reparations to the Jews for the Holocaust even though the individuals were no longer in power (and were punished separately), the government had changed and the state while similar was now changed as well due to the East/West split. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:A basic principle of all law is that you don't apply it retroactively. The Native Americans, for instance, don't have a legal claim to the land they were ethnically cleansed from even though it was certainly a moral wrong. Mmm? https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/380 quote:Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. FWIW, I think that the native americans are entitled to the continent they've had stolen from them, unfortunately the world isn't fair and they aren't going to get much of it back. I think that drawing distinctions based on the arbitrary dates in which laws were codified is foolish, but then again I've already noted plenty of times how this talk about mass immigration of palestinian refugees into the pre 1967 israeli borders is a red herring, bringing it up this often only serves the zionist narrative. the current conflict actually has almost nothing to do with the nakba and the plight of the refugees and everything to do with the military occupation of the west bank and gaza.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:To go back to the start of your response, I am not really impressed by how a few posters here are willing to give lip-service to the horrendous policies of Arab regimes towards their Palestinian populations, after this was brought up by others. The fact of the matter is that this side of the issue has and is systematically neglected by pro-Palestinians, and to tie back to Israeli responses and to Israeli policies, it's very easy for Israeli Jews and their elected policymakers to conclude that this complete one-sidedness is driven by hatred of Jews. I don't know exactly where you're coming from but in the area I'm working in probably 50 % or more of all the "pro-Palestinian" research on the Palestine-Israel issue is about the situation of Palestinian refugees in their host countries and maybe 20 % is about their situation under Israeli occupation or in Israel. But every time something is published about Israel there's always somewhere a tear-filled outcry about how obsessed academics are with smearing the unique and precious butterflies that are the Israeli Jews, even though most are Arabists and don't really care very much about Israel or Jews at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Mmm? https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/380 That doesn't work for a couple reasons. Firstly, Israel voluntarily joined the UN and in doing so conceded to the UNSC the ability to make binding decisions over it for any number of reasons. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for a just resolution to the conflict, which in many peoples eyes and based on the international consensus of what is just in this situation means a right of return. Secondly, and more importantly, there is customary international humanitarian law which you're not taking into account. Essentially when there is widespread agreement that something is wrong a country does not need to be a signatory to an agreement for it to be breaking international military/humanitarian law and in fact a specific international agreement doesn't even need to exist. For instance if there were no specific law outlawing rape camps, or if there was one but one country refused to sign, we'd still be able to prosecute those responsible regardless which is a very good thing. War crimes are essential the worst crimes imaginable due to the scale and scope on which they happen so we don't want to avoid prosecution (especially when they're so hard to prosecute anyway) by allowing the perpetrators of the worst atrocities to get off either on a technicality (no-one had thought to cover that specific problem) or because they've simply refused to sign an agreement saying it was illegal. Israel's actions being a violation of international customary law is pretty clear. For one, prior to Israel committing ethnic cleansing this had already been established as part of customary international law. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal in 1945 established that 'ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory' was a war crime in reference to Germany, even though Germany had never signed an agreement saying this was illegal. This was because the war crimes were (and are) based on what was "violations of the laws or customs of war". It also named as a crime against humanity "deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds" even though again no specific convention had said this was illegal. It can also be seen in the contemporary actions and statements around the time both independent of and in reaction to Israel's actions. In 1948 for instance we got the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights which states "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country". Meanwhile UNGA 194 resolves that "[T]he refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible". Very clearly according to customary international humanitarian law ethnic cleansing was illegal at the time that Israel committed it. Customary international humanitarian law is a core part of international law specifically to stop the argument of "But I didn't sign anything saying what I was planning to do was a crime, so it wasn't a crime", hence they are accountable exactly as explained. Thirdly, 'arbitrary dates 'are how it has to be. Unless we are never going to make anything illegal or we are going to apply all laws retroactively throughout all of time, laws have to be introduced at some point on an 'abitrary date'. Of the three possibilities, this is the only one that's sane. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 13:47
|
|