I was in a Hezbollah tunnel

[ajohn]

Best give up on some arguements. Point out aspects about a General Council resolution and the other type - ignore it. Rattle on about right of return and wonder why there is a reply to that, I'm not he one that is confused.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Best give up on some arguements. Point out aspects about a General Council resolution and the other type - ignore it. Rattle on about right of return and wonder why there is a reply to that, I'm not he one that is confused.

It would help if you post in the relevant thread.

As Filly, and others are fond of reminding anyone and everyone about the UN Resolution 181, allow me to remind the forum about the UN Resolution 194, which stated that Palestinians must have the Right of Return, which Israel has steadfastly refused to recognise or facilitate, for the last 76 years.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fillyboy]

Right of return is an oddball. Don't bother.

You've also omitted the right of return as an inalienable right. UN Resolution 3236

1. 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;

This is where it gets complicated. UN res 194 calls for the right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation comprising the value of their homes. Although the resolution passed, 15 countries voted against it including all six Arab Nation states.
This principle of right to return is now recognised in international law.

Approx 700,000 Palestinans took part in the exodus, estimates claim somewhere between 30-50,000 are still alive today and under international law have the inalienable right to return.
Somewhere down the line, the UN or possibly UNWRA decided to make the refugee status hereditary. (not something recognised in international law and is unique to Palestinian refugees)

So today, we have 5.5 million people claiming the right of return to Israel. (population 9.5 million and approximately the size of Wales).

Do you see any problems with this?

A solution/compromise needs to be found, I acknowledge that, but as AJohn says, bit of an oddball.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

1. 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;

This is where it gets complicated. UN res 194 calls for the right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation comprising the value of their homes. Although the resolution passed, 15 countries voted against it including all six Arab Nation states.

Yes, and merely three months later they reversed their view and became the strongest advocates for it.
Bernadotte the author and instigator of the UN Resolution was assassinated by Jewish paramilitaries.

This principle of right to return is now recognised in international law.

Precisely, The UN Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed every year since 1949.
It is also enshrined in the 1974 UN Resolution 3236 This time there were 8 voted against it, obviously Israel (who were now members) and USA.
Others abstained such as UK, France, Japan , Italy, etc.
89 Nations voted for that resolution, more than double the original Resolution.

Approx 700,000 Palestinans took part in the exodus, estimates claim somewhere between 30-50,000 are still alive today and under international law have the inalienable right to return.
Somewhere down the line, the UN or possibly UNWRA decided to make the refugee status hereditary. (not something recognised in international law and is unique to Palestinian refugees)

The ownership of property is enshrined in international law and was used by Jews for the return of property stolen during the war.
The property ownership is hereditary, therefore the Right of Return by moral and legal reason, the Right of Return should be hereditary. It is for Israelis.
It is obvious that if the original Palestinians were not forced out of Israel or Palestine or West Bank, their dependents would still be living in the family home.

The original Palestinian refugees.” They are almost all dead. They had occupancy rights and property rights. ..... Anyone who evaluates the history impartially will agree that both their property and occupancy rights were violated by those who prevented them from returning and who appropriated their property
Many of the original Palestinian refugees retained an expectation of return—they continued to struggle for return and planned their lives accordingly, up until death.
The first generation retain a deep connection to their territory; their descendants legitimately join that struggle, and so form legitimate plans to return with their parents; and their plans continue to have significance after their parents die.
Those whose occupancy rights have been violated can transfer their rights to their descendants, not because they retain transferable occupancy rights at death, but because they are able to offer opportunities to their children to live lives connected to those they would have been able to live had their rights not been appropriated

https://www7.tau.ac.il/ojs/index.php/til/article/viewFile/1650/1753#:~:text=The%20original%20Palestinian%20refugees%20had%20a%20right%20of%20return.,right%20to%20return%20with%20them.

So today, we have 5.5 million people claiming the right of return to Israel. (population 9.5 million and approximately the size of Wales).
Do you see any problems with this?

Israel sees a problem with that. The Israelis would be a minority, except they would still be in government, still applying apartheid, still considering the Palestinians as second-class citizens.. So it's a falsely created concern.
If the ethnic cleansing had not occurred, the same situation would exist.
Not all of the displaced refugees lived in Israel, and many of their homes and lands are now the site of Settler compounds, and or roads, cities, etc.
That's just hard luck.
As the Jews proved the right of return of stolen property, the same must apply to Palestinians.

A solution/compromise needs to be found, I acknowledge that, but as AJohn says, bit of an oddball.

Yes, but the Israelis are not content with compensating them for their stolen property.
They want the rest of the world to do so.

Bu there is another complexity, my right of return to UK, assuming I had emigrated, would not only be to any property that I own, or rent, or buy.
It is an inalienable right to reside anywhere in the UK, and not to be restricted to only the property that I own.
Indeed I could live in London, then move to Manchester, then retire to Devon, if I so wished.
The Right of Return is a Right to live anywhere within that territory, with the freedom of movement (within obvious property laws).

Therefore the Right to Return might include the physical Right to Return to the country, and compensation for any stolen property.
It is not sufficient to compensate someone for their loss of nationality.
And the vast majority of Palestinian refugees are still in a state of limbo, as far as nationality is concerned. They are Israeli or Palestinian, but can't live there, visit there, or travel within the borders.

 

[ajohn]

says, bit of an oddball.

A point I wanted to make relates to General Council resolutions. They are not enforceable. The agreement when return appears to have been dropped was organised by a Norwegian and filmed by Norwegian intelligence people. There are no paper records and the UN Courts don't accept it for various reasons + concerning signing rights away. There has been an AlJ prog on this..

Interesting video on AlJ, Some Palestinians organising holiday trips for those driven out or their children to find and show the house they or the family came from. I'd assume they had passports from where ever they are living now and also given conditions if they ever would come back especially the offsprings. One older lady used to live in a rock type house, Still empty.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

A point I wanted to make relates to General Council resolutions. They are not enforceable. The agreement when return appears to have been dropped was organised by a Norwegian and filmed by Norwegian intelligence people. There are no paper records and the UN Courts don't accept it for various reasons + concerning signing rights away. There has been an AlJ prog on this..

I think you are getting confused with the Geneva accord 2003, and UN Resolutions, and a Norwegian documentary.
The Geneva accord had nothing to do with the UN, it was a nothing.
The Norwegian film was a documentary about when imprisoned boys were released from prison. It had nothing to do with the Right of Return.

Norwegian film depicts suffering of Palestinian child prisoners

A film that depicts suffering of Palestinian child prisoners in Israeli jails and how imprisonment of children impacts their lives is currently displayed in the Austrian capital Vienna.

english.palinfo.com

UN resolutions are expected to be respected and honoured by all UN members. And they have considerable political influence.
Obviously UN Security Council resolutions can be enforced.

 

[fillyboy]

Bu there is another complexity, my right of return to UK, assuming I had emigrated, would not only be to any property that I own, or rent, or buy.
It is an inalienable right to reside anywhere in the UK, and not to be restricted to only the property that I own.
Indeed I could live in London, then move to Manchester, then retire to Devon, if I so wished.
The Right of Return is a Right to live anywhere within that territory, with the freedom of movement (within obvious property laws).

And your children, and your children's children?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

And your children, and your children's children?

So the rational argument goes.
There is no Statute of Limitation applicable, as declared by the Jews, in relation to the property stolen in the War.

They (Prominent Palestinians) argued that the right to property "cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation"

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The argument about no Statute of Limitation was based on the Jews argument for the return of stolen property.

So the sooner the Right of Return is implemented the easier it's sorted.

 

[ajohn]

A solution/compromise needs to be found, I acknowledge that, but as AJohn says, bit of an oddball.

I suppose that 1st generation could be included based on UNHCR comments maybe even kids they currently have.

TBH I see it as bit of a side issue. The main aspect may be the Palestinian refugee camps in the occupied territories. These are the areas that Israel mostly hits and also the breeding ground for "problems". Reports suggest that there are not many fighting style dissidents in the West Bank but that doesn't stop Israel from wrecking camps via punishment raids. Sometimes Palestinian towns get a mention but it always turn out to be a nearby camp. Gaza is different under Hamas but the refugee camps is where they came from and Israel are still hitting all of them over and over again.

So what is the status of these refugees. In the west bank Israel seems to like the idea of them moving elsewhere but where? The infrastructure Israel wrecks is generally self repaired. It can include electricity, sewage and water, Ripping up roads is common. They also can't use the Israeli only roads used to enable their settlements.

What is their actual status - pass no info i can find. So filly is right in some respects - there are what appear to be fairly happy Palestinians in their own towns. They moan but don't appear to cause a problem. So what is it about the camps? This in my view does need a solution.

 

[fillyboy]

So the rational argument goes.
There is no Statute of Limitation applicable, as declared by the Jews, in relation to the property stolen in the War.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The argument about no Statute of Limitation was based on the Jews argument for the return of stolen property.

So the sooner the Right of Return is implemented the easier it's sorted.

Your conflating different issues. There is no legal status for refugee status becoming hereditary.

There is a basis for compensation of loss of property in financial terms, and I would guess descendants would be legally allowed to claim.
But the right of return to 5.5 million people isn't going to happen unless the Terrorists achieve their aim of destroying Israel.

 

[ajohn]

Obviously UN Security Council resolutions can be enforced.

The only ones that can be if they decide to do something. The other are a reflection of different countries views and nothing else. They can result in a Security council vote and do as you may have noticed. Also other UN actions such as the courts.

 

[ajohn]

Terrorists achieve their aim of destroying Israel.

I don't think any of the problem people see that as possible now. Times change.

 

[fillyboy]

I suppose that 1st generation could be included based on UNHCR comments maybe even kids they currently have.

Which as I said means 5.5 million 'refugees' returning to Israel, a country the size of Wales with a population of 9 million. (the population of Wales is about 3 milllion).
Also, please note that Palestinians are the only group of refugees in the world (there are about 117 million refugees worldwide) where refugee status is hereditary.

 

[fillyboy]

I don't think any of the problem people see that as possible now. Times change.

But they still won't sit down and talk?

 

[fillyboy]

Obviously UN Security Council resolutions can be enforced.

UN security council resolution 1701

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is a resolution that was intended to resolve the 2006 Lebanon War. The resolution calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon to be replaced by Lebanese and UNIFIL forces deploying to southern Lebanon, and the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah, with no armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese military south of the Litani River, which flows about 29 km (18 mi) north of the border. It emphasizes Lebanon's need to fully exert government control and calls for efforts to address the unconditional release of abducted Israeli soldiers.

It was unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council on 11 August 2006. The Lebanese cabinet unanimously approved the resolution on 12 August 2006. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a ceasefire. He also said that once the Israeli offensive stops, Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel would stop. On 13 August the Israeli Cabinet voted 24–0 in favor of the resolution, with one abstention. The ceasefire began on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 8 AM local time, after increased attacks by both sides.

As of 2024, the resolution was not fully implemented. While Israeli forces did withdraw from Lebanon, Hezbollah and other armed groups in southern Lebanon have not. Hezbollah has since significantly increased their weapons capabilities, amassing approx. 120,000-200,000 munitions (short-range guided ballistic missiles, short- and intermediate-range unguided ballistic missiles, and short- and long-range unguided rockets), and has increased the deployment of its armed forces south of the Litani River, developing tunnels, weapon stashes, airstrips and military installations.[1][2][3][4] Lebanon accuses Israel of not fully withdrawing from Lebanese territories, which is contradicted by the UN, and violating air and seaspace, which is a frequent occurrence.