|
Xander77 posted:The internationally recognized standard of refugee status does not include "their descendants" when not dealing with the Palestinian diaspora, for some odd reason. Yes it does. From the UNHCR: HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS posted:If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity. it is obvious, however, that formal refugee status should not be granted to a dependant if this is incompatible with his personal legal status. Thus, a dependant member of a refugee family may be a national of the country of asylum or of another country, and may enjoy that country’s protection. To grant him refugee status in such circumstances would not be called for. The UN absolutely counts descendants as part of the refugee populations when not dealing with the Palestinian diaspora, see the Sahrawi refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_refugees)
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Dependents does not equal descendants In this case it does, they explicitly spell it out : "HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS" posted:individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority. Xander77 posted:At best, we're talking about a practical policy of "ok, people stuck in refugee camps are refugees". (Which is the reason why Arab nations make sure to keep their Palestinian population in refugee camps, so the everything is working exactly as intended) It is pretty lovely that some Arab states still refuse to grant citizenship to their Palestinian refugees, but that doesn't make Israel any less lovely. And realistically, any solution that relies on Saudi Arabia respecting the human rights of its Palestinian refugees is laughable at best. So what is a realistic solution for refugees stuck in a poo poo hole like Saudi Arabia?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Does BDS accept the right for a Jewish state to exist in the mideast, yes or no? BDS is comprised of many disparate organizations who have different ideas about what their ideal political solutions look like. Some support a two state solution, while others support a single state solution. Either way it's irrelevant because BDS does not advocate for any particular political solution, nor is the goal of BDS to reach one. As has already been reiterated in this thread, BDS's goals are: BDS posted:Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; None of their stated goals inherently threaten Israel as a Jewish state. One could argue that the third goal conflicts with the notion of Israel being a Jewish state, but that argument hinges on the idea that having a Jewish majority is a necessary condition for having a Jewish state. While that is certainly a valid position, if we use that as a basis for determining anti-semitism the most cursory examination leads to logical contradictions. For example, we know that non-Jews currently make up a minority of Israel's population, but we also know non-Jews have a higher birth rate, thus not reducing the non-Jew birth rate would be anti-semetic since it would lead to a non-Jewish majority. Following this line of logic, any Jew who refused to maintain or increase the Jewish birth rate would be guilty of anti-semetism, which is just dumb as hell. Furthermore, even The Insect Court is insisting that it is not anti-semetic to reject Israeli as a Jewish state: quote:There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews. Is The Insect Court, one of the most ardent Israel supporters in this thread, being anti-semetic by promulgating such an idea? skeet decorator fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:I don't think it is reasonable to assume a nation-state must be entirely multicultural and divorced from any historical, cultural, religious or ethnic focus. Most states are not. Requiring Israel to be so seems highly impractical. Ehhhhh... I think that's fuzzy line, because if you flip it around then it becomes reasonable to assume a nation state must be of a certain culture, which leads to stuff like ethnic cleansing. I think removing/expelling people of the wrong culture would definitely fall under ethnic cleansing, while controlling immigration falls into a more morally grey area. To me this seems questionable because it all quickly devolves into a grotesque moral calculus. Is only allowing Jewish immigrants ok? If you allow the same number or Arab and Jewish immigrants does that undermine the Jewish majority if the Arab birth rate is higher? If the growth rate of the current Arab population is higher than the Jewish birth rate and immigration rate, is it ok to take measures to reduce the Arab birth rate? For me it comes down to a question of self-determination. I think the Jewish people deserve the right to self-determination, but not at the expense of others. I don't see how you can enforce a cultural majority without sacrificing the self-determination of the minority.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:If I mention Zimbabwe will you give a real answer or just dodge the question again? As I've said, it's a D&D I/P thread, do you really think people are going to criticize you for an answer that's essentially "Whatever happens to them, happens"? First off, no one is advocating for an unrestricted right of return. If you actually look at survey data a small minority of Palestinians would actually want to exercise their right of return: quote:1. Return to Israel and become (or not become) an Israeli citizen - 10% Secondly, in your hypothetical scenario where Jews will definitely be disenfranchised once there's an Arab majority, that presupposes that Israel's institutions are currently incapable of protecting the rights of minorities. Which I'm sure plenty of people here would agree with, in fact that's one of BDS's stated goals: quote:Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; If we addressed this goal now, we would actually be helping people right now (and I guess a hypothetical future Jewish minority). So why don't we discuss a solution for the current minorities in Israel who by your own supposition do not enjoy adequate protections. Why don't we start with this proposal: Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People posted:Sections 1–2 of the bill detail the principles for which the law was established: "Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people in which the Jewish people fulfill their ambition to self-determination according to their cultural and historical legacy." I see a lot of this as at odds with respecting the rights of minorities, which parts can we keep to make Israel a Jewish state and still protect minorities?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Well, by the standard I used before, it is at least consistent and not self-defeating and indefensible. No, by your standard it is inconsistent and self-defeating to support Israeli violence. The fact that Israeli will "win" any conflict with Hamas does not preclude them from incurring more harm to Israel than had they not engaged in violence.  Did Israeli aggression lead to fewer or more rocket attacks? Is Israeli less terrorized or more terrorized than it was before? The only way your position is consistent is if you acknowledge that Palestinian violence does not materially affect Israel. Which would imply any Palestinian action that provokes Israel, violent or not, is indefensible. Is the PA seeking redress in the ICC similarly indefensible because it resulted in Israel freezing tax payments? Why don't you drop the realpolitik gibberish and just come out and say that you don't support the Palestinian's right to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Jewish people are a supermajority in Israel, not a demographic minority. Even if you include the West Bank and Gaza, they still maintain a majority. And if you include the over 2 million refugees in Jordan? The refugee camps in Syria? Lebanon? Israel sees the right of return as an existential threat precisely because of their demographic minority.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
My main source of skepticism towards the IDF is that as far as I know most if not all of their munitions are guided, seems like they'd have some record of what they're bombing and when. If they wanted to exculpate themselves it seems like it'd be pretty easy to say "These are the targets we bombed during this time period" and allow the US to verify their claims. I can't wrap my head around the fact that the most convincing evidence they can offer the US is a recording of a conversation that proves absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 14:54
|
|