Is the Palestinian Right of Return a Path to Peace or Conflict?

[tiny-tim]

UN General Assembly powers, and racist insult

I'm sorry, are you arguing that while Israel's denial of the refugees rights is decidedly immoral, it isn't illegal?

(i assume you meant to be funny! )

Regardless, where does the UN declare that such UNGA resolutions affirm anything less than legal rights?

Good question … Articles 10 to 17 (constituting the section "FUNCTIONS and POWERS"), in Chapter IV of the UN charter, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml , sets out the powers of the General Assembly.

Those powers are only to consider, discuss, and make recommendations. Legal rights (and all other action) have to be left to the Security Council …

Article 11
…
2. … Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.
3.The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.
4.The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.
Article 12
1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.

wikipedia summarises these powers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution …

Although General Assembly resolutions are generally non-binding towards member states, internal resolutions may be binding on the operation of the General Assembly itself, for example with regard to budgetary and procedural matters.

UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.

Also, I noticed you reaching for claims of racism

What do you mean "reaching"? A racist word was used, with no apparent reason other than racist insult. Are you seriously suggesting that one should remain silent in the face of racist insult?

And the word was deliberately mis-spelled to bring out the insult even more graphically … from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster …

Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally "one who defecates," from the verb scheissen, "to defecate," with the English suffix -ster, "one who does," substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a *****.

are you one of the many who believe the vast majority of the world is Judophobic biased on the votes to uphold Palestinian rights in the UN?

I assume you're referring to the allegation that some people accuse any criticism of Israel as racist … my accusation (not against you) wasn't about any criticism of Israel, it was about a personal insult that had nothing to do with Israel.

wasn't it? ​

For whoever isn't aware of this phenomena, I recommend checking out this website which tracks UN resolutions against Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, refugees or otherwise:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm

Sorry … what is the point you're making about UN Watch?

You haven't quoted, from the same page …

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
"I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations' activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close attention to your observations and views in the years ahead." —Letter to Ambassador Morris B. Abram, Chairman of UN Watch, Jan. 30, 1997. See also Secretary-General Annan's 1999 Tribute to UN Watch Founder Morris B. Abram.

United Nations Office at Geneva Director-General Sergei Ordzho- nikidze:
"Allow me to pay tribute to the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all." —Statement Delivered at Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, March 16, 2006.

 

[The Dagda]

Yes you did … in post #19, you quoted (without saying where you were quoting from) a long passage including the wordsThe chronology shows clearly that that is not true … which you still seemed reluctant to accept.

In that case my source was incorrect, please try and distinguish that, I also doubt the source is wrong but there you go, that's nothing to do with what I claimed. I did not make mention of a particular chronology. Source is wiki and not only that it's citations are the actual resolution.

"scheister" … is that racists' language for "Jewish lawyer"? ​

Dagas, have some common-sense … I think you can safely assume that anyone in a physics forum is not a lawyer.

Racist? It's a Yiddish word for a lawyer who's less than on the level so no. Not unless the Jews are racist against themselves. And obviously I was joking thus the smilie.

I entirely accept that anything signed or promised by Israel is a contract, or similar legal commitment.

But the Protocol does not contain any promise … if you still maintain it does, can you please point to the words of that promise? Well, it certainly isn't asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted elsewhere.

Except the UN resolution.

If you wish to continue your claim that Israel made an assertion or promise about right of return, and then broke it, then please give some evidence of it … all documentation is by now available somewhere on the internet.

They did, they said so, and they agreed to the UN resolution.

If you can't or won't produce the actual assertion or promise, then stop claiming that there was one. ​

No because it's history, and you seem to think agreeing to a resolution, and making a promise to action it in return for membership to the UN doesn't constitute a promise.

I think I've done more than enough to establish that Israel made a clear assent to action the right of return at some point, if you continue to deny it that's your look out, but there you go. History doesn't change on your whims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

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;

Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".[2] The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. After Israel became a member of the United Nations, the only attempt at any repatriation was a short-lived offer to accept 100,000 refugees, but no more. This offer, which was rejected by the Arabs, was then quickly withdrawn by Israel.[1] David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, insisted in an interview with the members of the Conciliations Commission that as long as Israel could not count on the dedication of any Arab refugees to remain "at peace with their neighbors" - a consequence, he contended, of the Arab states' unwillingness to remain at peace with the state of Israel - resettlement was not an obligation for his country.[2]

 

[Alfi]

Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …

since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …

virtually the whole international community is opposed to this, and it is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas …

Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel.

There is no way of achieving peace between two neighbours when one wants to destroy the other (the other only wanting to live side-by-side in peace in the internationally supported "two-state solution").


Egypt, like Jordan, has made peace with Israel.

Egypt hates Hamas.

Apart from a bunch of facts that have been questioned, I noticed a comment that seems to have struck me to ponder.
"since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …"

I live in a Toronto, a city of about five Million. It's a lot of people but not an impossible number. They ( the refugee's ) had to have been there before if they are trying to return. Why would a large city's worth of people end a separate state?

 

[Vanadium 50]

They ( the refugee's ) had to have been there before if they are trying to return.

It's not so simple. "Return" does not just mean the people who once lived there 60 years ago. There's probably not more than 100,000 people in that category. It's their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who number in the millions.

 

[turbo]

It's not so simple. "Return" does not just mean the people who once lived there 60 years ago. There's probably not more than 100,000 people in that category. It's their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who number in the millions.

And that IS a problem. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine some 60 years ago will be complete soon if Israel is allowed to narrowly construe "return" as applying only the actual persons driven off, and thus disenfranchise the descendants of those whose farms, homes, businesses, etc were stolen from them.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

disenfranchise the descendants of those whose farms, homes, businesses, etc were stolen from them.

That's a rather harsh description of the situation, but if you are willing to vacate your own home in order to return it to the decendents of those from whom it was stolen, then who are we to protest.

 

[turbo]

That's a rather harsh description of the situation, but if you are willing to vacate your own home in order to return it to the decendents of those from whom it was stolen, then who are we to protest.

I AM a descendant of people whose property was taken from them by European settlers. On my mother's side I have French heritage (the French generally cooperated with and intermarried with the native Americans).

It's not a harsh description of the situation to speak the truth about how the Zionists (who controlled less than 10% of the land prior to 1948) came to establish a Jewish state. Palestinians were driven off and murdered by Zionists using terrorism (organized violence against civilians). The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.

Not just this time and place. All times and all places. If you want everyone to go back to where they came from, then why start with the Israelis in particular? A few Isrealis have intermarried with Palestinians. Does that settle the matter?

 

[BobG]

I AM a descendant of people whose property was taken from them by European settlers. On my mother's side I have French heritage (the French generally cooperated with and intermarried with the native Americans).

It's not a harsh description of the situation to speak the truth about how the Zionists (who controlled less than 10% of the land prior to 1948) came to establish a Jewish state. Palestinians were driven off and murdered by Zionists using terrorism (organized violence against civilians). The history of this time and place is both well-known and rarely-acknowledged in the Western world.

China, Russia, and the United States (permanent members of the UN Security Council) are not very likely to ever order the return of Palestinians since it would set a very bad precedent for them. Canada wouldn't be very happy, either. (Generally, the larger a country's area, the more indigenous 'nations' that were displaced completely or placed under some other nation's rule).

The United States might support a monetary settlement, since that's how the US has generally handled dealing with its past (the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example).

 

[turbo]

Diplomatically, "right of return" is the stick, and peace under a two-state solution is the carrot. The major players in the UN (US chief among them) are reluctant to force any solution on the party with the upper hand (Israel), though it would be of benefit to all to see this conflict resolved. Until this changes, military might will be the determining factor in the region.

Realistically, there is no way that Palestinians could ever re-settle their properties safely - Israel's right-wing would never allow it, even if the majority of Israelis came to agree to it. Even now, they are not secure in the West Bank and are losing territory to settlements, barriers, roads with check-points, etc. None of that will change unless the UN demands it and forces sanctions for non-compliance.

 

[Judy]

Not just this time and place. All times and all places. If you want everyone to go back to where they came from, then why start with the Israelis in particular? A few Isrealis have intermarried with Palestinians. Does that settle the matter?

The Israeli Palestinian conflict is totally different from any other case. You can not say
" If you want everyone to go back to where they come from, then why start with Israelis?"
There is not a case in the whole history that you can refer to as similar to the Palestinians' and Israelis' situation.
this situation is different for many reasons:

1-Israel established its state in the middle of Arab states,and by force and aggressive means.( for sure it would not be welcomed)

2- that happened 60 years ago ( which is relatively not a long period when compared with similar situations) meaning: those generations who witnessed the way Israel occupied their land, and expelled them by force would not let go easily their right to return.

3- The owners of this land ( Palestine) are still there,and alive!
They are living in huge numbers squeezed in a small strip. So, it is their basic right to be back to their land

these reasons are among many to make Palestinians ( plus Arab people) hope of a Palestinian independent state established exactly where it was before, even if it costs the destruction of Israel since Israel has done the very same thing once.

 

[tiny-tim]

purpose of the Protocol

ADDENDUM to my post #20, in which I couldn't find the original scope of the Lausanne Conference …

A clue is given by Paragraph 10 of that text, which starts by indicating that the purpose of the Protocol was to extend the original scope of the Lausanne meetings (and no, I haven't found out what that was ) to include the refugee question, but concludes only by mentioning a map:

I've at last found that the original scope of the Lausanne Conference was laid down by "[url[/URL] (16 November 1948) …
[QUOTE]2. [I]Calls upon [/I]the parties directly involved in the conflict in Palestine, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter, to seek agreement forthwith, by negotiations conducted either directly or through the Acting Mediator, with a view to the immediate establishment of the armistice, including:
(a) The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;
(b) Such withdrawal and reduction of their armed forces will ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine.[/QUOTE]
… which orders the parties to [B]negotiate[/B], but only as to armistice lines and withdrawing to them.

Then [URL]http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm"[/URL]
(11 December 1948) set up a Conciliation Commission (with 3 members: France USA and Turkey) to chair these negotiations, [I]but[/I] although it could [I]force[/I] the parties to negotiate armistice lines (because UNSC 62 had mandated it), it could not [I]force[/I] them to negotiate anything else …

and so the UNGA merely politely requested the parties to enlarge the negotiations to include "all questions outstanding between them" (including [I]territorial adjustments[/I] and[I] refugees[/I]) …
[QUOTE][SIZE="1"]5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;
6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

From paragraph 10 of the [PLAIN]http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument" …

10. The Commission … the matters outstanding … particularly the refugee question and the territorial question, were closely interlinked, has urged the Arab and Israeli delegations to extend their exchanges of views to all the problems covered by the Assembly resolution.
To this end, it asked the two parties separately to sign with the commission a Protocol … which would constitute the basis of work. To this document was annexed a map …, which has thus been taken as the basis of discussion with the Commission. It is understood that any necessary adjustments of these boundaries could be proposed.

… we see that the Conciliation Commission persuaded the parties to commit themselves to negotiations on all matters by having them sign the Protocol of 12 May 1949.

The Protocol self-evidently does not contain any substantive agreement or promise on any subject … this post is simply to show what the procedural agreement was (which is not self-evident ).​

 

[The Dagda]

You do know these same excuses are used by Israel, to try and weasel out of agreements they made in supposedly good faith. No one bought it then, no one is going to now, as I said they made promises that they should of kept, and then reneged on them. That is all I have said so far, so if you're aiming that at me, and saying what they should do then that is not what I have argued. As to whether it was a contract verbal and signed, I'd say yes. They failed to act on it even in the slightest. That's not at issue.

 

[tiny-tim]

… and you seem to think agreeing to a resolution, and making a promise to action it in return for membership to the UN doesn't constitute a promise.

Of course I agree that that would constitute a promise …

but not only is there no evidence that Israel did that, the evidence points clearly to the contrary …

the documents signed by Israel at Lausanne clearly show that Israel promised nothing before the vote on UN inclusion …

(and nothing after inclusion except the August 3 1949 offer to allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return, although not necessarily to their villages)

I entirely accept that anything signed or promised by Israel is a contract, or similar legal commitment.

But the Protocol does not contain any promise … if you still maintain it does, can you please point to the words of that promise?


Well, it certainly isn't asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted elsewhere.

Except the UN resolution.

If you wish to continue your claim that Israel made an assertion or promise about right of return, and then broke it, then please give some evidence of it … all documentation is by now available somewhere on the internet.

They did, they said so, and they agreed to the UN resolution.

Where? In what words did Israel agree to the UN resolution (UN General Assembly Resolution 194)?

I repeat … no agreement or promise by Israel is asserted in the Protocol, or in anything else from the Lausanne conference.

And you haven't yet claimed that it was asserted by Israel elsewhere.

If you can't or won't produce the actual assertion or promise, then stop claiming that there was one.

No because it's history, …

I think I've done more than enough to establish that Israel made a clear assent to action the right of return at some point, if you continue to deny it that's your look out, but there you go. History doesn't change on your whims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

… The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. …

oh i see … you're relying on two sentences in wikipedia …

No, it's not history … it's two sentences in wikipedia that contradict everything else available

wikipedia is not always right …

and in this case just looking at the Protocol which wikipedia quotes shows clearly that wikipedia is wrong in this case.

"history", as you call it, is not casting around the internet for one line that contradicts everything else available …

history is not wishful thinking based on no evidence, or based on someone else's wishful thinking based on no evidence …

history is taken from the original documents, which you are refusing to do.

 

[The Dagda]

Look it doesn't mention that Israel was under pressure to include some discussion of RoR, for inclusion into the UN either in the exact text, but there's a lot more to a conference than just signing up to something, promises were made, reneged on, because of this 194 was passed, they also don't think this applies to them. You work it out. If you have trouble with the sources that's not my problem. Short of me finding the complete minutes of the entire conference I can only produce what was discussed in citation terms in Wiki.

Please note I do not specify that they should action a RoR in its entirety or otherwise, I say they signed up to expedite the issue. You seem to be making out I'm trying to prove something I'm not. All I am saying is there needed to be an agreement between the two parties, it had to be discussed and the two sides agreed on it. That could of meant financial compensation, limited right of return anything. But the fact that they agreed to work something out is entirely a moot point.

 

[kyleb]

(i assume you meant to be funny! )

I do not see any comedy in denying the rights of millions of refugees, and I find it disturbing that you do.

Good question … Articles 10 to 17 (constituting the section "FUNCTIONS and POWERS"), in Chapter IV of the UN charter, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml , sets out the powers of the General Assembly.

What you quoted doesn't even mention the status of the rights affermed by UN resolutions, let alone does it mention the distinction in status you claim.

UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.

It is my understanding that the UNGA resolution 181 partition plan established the legal right for Israel to exist. If I am to accept your claim of a distinction betwen rights, then I will be left with no knowledge of any legal basis for Israel's right to exist. So, while I'm still looking for you to substantiate your claim that the UN makes any such distinction of rights; I am also curious to know what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all?

What do you mean "reaching"? A racist word was used, with no apparent reason other than racist insult. Are you seriously suggesting that one should remain silent in the face of racist insult?

And the word was deliberately mis-spelled to bring out the insult even more graphically … from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster …

First off, there is no racial connotation to the term. More directly, the majority of shysters in this world aren't Jews, and the majority of Jews in this world aren't shysters.

That said, you are reaching when you ascribe a racial connotation to a word which doesn't have one. You are reaching even further when you post a link that doesn't suggest any racial connotation to the word you claim has one. You are even more reaching when you allege a misspelling of that word is a deliberate attempt to amplify that nonexistent racial connotation. You may not have done any of this deliberately, but you have been making reaching attempts to play the racism-card here just the same.

I assume you're referring to the allegation that some people accuse any criticism of Israel as racist … my accusation (not against you) wasn't about any criticism of Israel, it was about a personal insult that had nothing to do with Israel.

wasn't it? ​

Sorry … what is the point you're making about UN Watch?

You haven't quoted, from the same page

I didn't quote what you did there because it has no bearing on my point. Again, the fact that the vast majority of the nations of the world's constant reaffirmation of the rights of Palestinians misleads some to believe world is racist against Jews. Since you have been perpetuating similar sophistry, I am curious to know how far you go with it, and presented that website as an example of the exteme to people who aren't aware of the this phenomena.

Regardless, I don't see how anything less than racism could have facilitated Israel's violent uprooting of masses of Palestinians, and the decades long and ongoing denial of the rights of those resulting refugees and Palestinians as a whole. How else could Israel have committed that original injustice against those refugees, and continue perpetrating that injustice and others against Palestinians in general to this day, other than though deeply ingrained bigoty against them? Is that why you found my previous question on the immorality of denying Palestinians refugee rights humorous?

China, Russia, and the United States (permanent members of the UN Security Council) are not very likely to ever order the return of Palestinians since it would set a very bad precedent for them. Canada wouldn't be very happy, either. (Generally, the larger a country's area, the more indigenous 'nations' that were displaced completely or placed under some other nation's rule).

The United States might support a monetary settlement, since that's how the US has generally handled dealing with its past (the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example).

There difference here is that Israel is has continued to maintain military occupation over Palestinian territory for decades, while colonizing across that territory with Israeli civilian settlements. This leaves millions of Palestinians stateless, including many refugees of what is now Israel, permanently denied civil rights by Israel martial law, as Israel kills off anyone who stands in the way of their ongoing conquest over what little of Palestine is left. Furthermore, all one has to do is check the documentation to see that, aside from the US, all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Canada and the rest of the world, often demonstrate their respect for this difference with UNGA resolutions affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees, such as this one I posted previously:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49634ced2.html

That resolution was adopted with a vote of 173-1-6, as recounted here:

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/...e=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=A/RES/63/91#focus

If our US government had any real interest in supporting a monetary settlement, we could have done so decades ago rather than vetoing any Security Counsel resolutions directed at imposing such a just conclusion to this conflict. Unfortunately, in the US and Israel, we've been flooded with masses of propaganda to blame the victims of Israels conquest over Palestine. I doubt many of our leaders in both nations even realize they are misguiding themselves with such chicanery, and I am sure most of the population doesn't, but that is exactly what allows Israel to deny the rights of Palestinians, refugees and otherwise. Again, is Israel's conquest over Palestine nothing more than a manifestation of racism, or where anyone find any actual justice in continuing this?

 

[The Dagda]

I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt. I think Scheister is the original Yiddish a corruption of the German word Sheisser, and Shyster is the US corruption not sure, either way it's a slang term like schmuck.

 

[tiny-tim]

I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt.

oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled.

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

 

[BobG]

This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?

 

[drizzle]

are you trying to warn someone to lock the thread? as long no one overcome the roles, it is ok to keep it ...and necessary too

 

[drizzle]

sorry if that sounds rude

 

[kyleb]

This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

 

[turbo]

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

George Mitchell, son of Lebanese Christian emigrees to Maine, has just been appointed by Obama as Mid-East envoy. Let's see what happens.

 

[kyleb]

I agree that Obama's appointment of Mitchell looks promising, particularly considering his previous efforts on this conflict, and his work in Northern Ireland. However, there is massive wall of support for Israel's conquest over Palestine, as evidenced by the nearly unanimous devotion across Congress and the media. We have a society which has be conditioned to condemn terrorists for their deplorable tactics, while completely ignoring our deplorable and long standing denial of Palestinians rights which inspires such terrorism.

Put simply, I'd rather not just sit back and watch, as that is what our nation has been doing for decades now, since before I was born. Having studied this conflict thoroughly over the past decade, I have seen been many times of promise over the history, but all have fallen well short of their stated goal, and often only served to further exasperate discord. This has left us perpetuating the conquest over Palestine, as we seem destined to do until our society can rid itself of the illusions that there is some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hff2p705cUI" to be found in any of this.

 

[The Dagda]

oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled.

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scheister

http://www.fvrss.com/2008/07/attorneys-at-law-swindel-scheister.html

Like I say the word is Yiddish and slang. If The Jews are racist against themselves, it would be quite ironic don't you think? You are aware that Yiddish is a German/Hebrew language right? It wouldn't be racist if it was referring to an underhanded Jewish Lawyer, it was a joke, for God's sake let it lie already.

 

[tiny-tim]

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scheister

http://www.fvrss.com/2008/07/attorneys-at-law-swindel-scheister.html

(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that?

 

[The Dagda]

(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that?

It's slang ok why are you pressing this so hard, I looked it up in a slang dictionary because it's a slang term. What's up with that? There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.

In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.

 

[The Dagda]

In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.

Who cares? Really do you not think this thread has been derailed enough by pedantry? Or did you just think I know, I'll add to the derail for a laugh? The fact is Scheister is a slang term, it's used by people in the real world, now can we all just shut the **** up really, it's petty and we don't need it. This is what happens when someone's arguments fall apart, they detiriorate into petty point picking, it's sad, but there you go.

I can't spell shlemiel well that's my life over, the Jewish Womens Guild will never let me play their club again.

And for the record, I am not a racist either, thanks very much. *slaps head* Oy vey!

 

[BobG]

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question. Forget justice. Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it. The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.

 

[kyleb]

Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question.

How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?

Forget justice.

That is what we have been doing here for decades now, and I don't see any good coming out of it.

Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.

I never suggested eliminating Israel's government or cultural infrastructure, and would never do so even if Israel had no nuclear capabilities.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it.

The Arab nations have accepted Israel's existence, they just want this conflict resolved by peaceful means on the basis of international law, all they need is for us to stop vetoing the UN resolutions which would accomplish that goal.

The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.

Cutting South Africa off from the resources necessary to continue the practice of apartheid though sanctions and divestment shows how much significance the UN and world opinion can have here, if only US veto power woudn't block it.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?

What "right thing" are you after here specifically?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.

What "something" would you recommend Palestinians focus on?

 

[BobG]

How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?

This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation. The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely. The negotiation should be over the what the reasonable value is.

Rockets landing in Israel raise the reasonable value since part of the payment is just to get the rocket fire to stop. Wiping out the capability to fire rockets into Israel lowers the reasonable value considerably.

Edit: The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel. As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part. The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.

 

[The Dagda]

I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.

 

[turbo]

Under international law, the right of return is a guarantee to refugees that must be honored. Israel could likely end its conflict with the Palestinians by withdrawing from the west bank and ceding enough territory to allow the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By doing this, they would pull the teeth of the radicals in Palestine, and the Palestinians could have a viable reason to waive the right of return.

This will never happen as long as any single permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the General Assembly, as the US has consistently done in the case of resolutions seen as detrimental to Israel's interests.

 

[kyleb]

This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation.

It is the solution the world acknowledges, but US veto power in the UN allows Israel to refuse that solution.

The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

How does Israel's refusal to accept Palestinians rights do anything to lower the value of them?

The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel.

I gathered that much.

As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part.

Do you not understand the fact that Jews employed overwhelming military force to drive out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from throughout both sides of the partition in the months before declaring statehood?

Regardless, you are mistaken in believing those resulting refugees were ever provided the opportunity to accept the partition.

The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting we all forget justice in favor of embracing the power to perpetuate iniquity? Or rather, in simple terms; might makes right?

I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.

Rightful claim would be Israel's alone if Palestinians were given reasonable compensation for their losses. Furthermore, considering even Quran condones accepting blood money to resolve a conflict, I am curious to know what parties are you suggesting would not agree to such a resolution?