babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Refugees and Rights

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Refugees and Rights
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 29 May 2004 06:27 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its been months since I last visited babble. I'm amazed how some here find time to post every day. I wish I had more time to contribute here.

I'm starting this thread in response to qustions and comments in rabble features and other places concerning the right of return. I'm not discussing a specific rabble feature and this issue concerns people all over the world not just in the middle east. So I started this thread in the international peace forum. Apologies to the moderators if I'm mistaken.


The plight of Palestinian refugees was ignored by much of the world for decades out fear and ignorance. Many hoped and many still hope that if we wait only a few more decades refugees will somehow eventually disappear and make life simpler for the rest of the world. After three generations of being denied their humanity, the refugees' demands for justice have only gotten louder.

We hear a lot of talk about the right of retun coming from polititians concerned mainly with business privilege and power. Here I want to discuss the issue from a human rights perspective.

This article from MADRE, "an international women's human rights organization", is the most comprehensive backgrounder on the the right of return I have found on the web.

quote:
A MADRE Backgrounder
By Yifat Susskind

October 2000

Internationally, few people are aware that the majority of Palestinians killed and wounded in clashes with Israeli soldiers are refugees. Most are young people born and raised in the over-crowded, poverty-stricken refugee camps strewn throughout the West Bank and Gaza. With little else but their bodies to use as political collateral, this community comprises the frontlines of the clashes now raging throughout the Occupied Territories.


This MADRE backgrounder on the condition of Palestinian refugees was written in September 2000, before the confrontations that began on September 28 of last year. Prospects for resolution of the conflict, explored in Section V., are clearly preempted by the current crisis. Yet today's violence underscores the fact that any political settlement that negates Palestinian human rights, including the right of return, will not be viable. We hope that this backgrounder helps to contextualize the current crisis and to strengthen the international community's commitment to Palestinian refugee rights.


[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: salaam ]

The right of return is not an exclusively Palestinian right. It is a human right which we all excercize and take for granted. Whenever we leave our homes or go abroad to work, study or visit friends we expect to be able to return to our homes, and our personal possesions and bank accounts to remain in our name. All people regardless of their culture or where they come from should expect that.

Amnesty Interational's policy statement explains in detail what the right of return means in international law.

Based on the concept of equality of all human beings, international law ensures that the rights of one person do not violate the rights of others. International law also provides the basic principles apon which the right of return should be implemented.

quote:
8. Amnesty International supports the return of exiles to their own homes or the vicinity of their own homes, where this is feasible. The rights of innocent third parties who may be living in the homes or on the lands of the exiles, should also be taken into account. Exiles who choose not to return are entitled to compensation for lost property; those returning should also be compensated for lost property.

9. Amnesty International recognizes that the resolution of protracted conflicts involving the displacement of populations may require durable solutions alternative to the exercise of the right to return, such as integration into the host country and resettlement in a third country. However, the decision to exercise the right to return or to avail themselves of alternative solutions must be the free and informed decision of the individuals concerned. The right to return is an individual human right, and as such should not be used as a bargaining chip by any of the parties involved in negotiating a settlement.

10. Amnesty International has supported the right to return of people from countries in all regions of the world, including Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, East Timor, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kosovo, and Rwanda.


Human Rights Watch's policy is similar. Their site also has direct links to relevant legal documents and explainations of some of the terms they use.


Concerning Palestinian refugee rights in particular, BADIL is an excellent resource of information and analysis.

Concerning the refugees' property, their is very detailed documentation of what each refugee actually owns and where it is located.Michael R. Fischbach's "Records of Dispossession" reviews the data and provides analysis.

quote:
The 20th century is full of examples of how resolving ethnic conflicts and injustices involves compensation, restitution, and/or reparation to the victims of such events. During the past decade alone, the world has seen the heirs of Holocaust victims obtain their loved ones’ long-lost bank accounts and insurance claims, just as the Dayton Accords provided for property restitution for persons made refugees by the Bosnian war. Yet the refugee exodus that has received more global attention than any other in the past 50 years the Palestinians has not seen such action taken on behalf of the victims.

This is not for lack of evidence: Ironically, the Palestinian case is the one with the most thorough records of lost property of any refugee exodus anywhere in the world. These records have lain behind locked doors at the UN secretariat archives in New York for 40 years. To date, however, they have not been utilized the for purpose for which they were created: resolving Palestinian refugees’ property claims.


[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Saffron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5965

posted 03 June 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for Saffron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WHERE'S THE PEACE MOVEMENT.....WE NEED THEM NOW! We've got to get moving everyone.....shouldn't we be doing something to stop Stephen Harper. He can dance around the issue all he wants....(and the media's letting him)......but if he had been Prime Minister a year ago we would have our sons and daughter at the front lines in Iraq right now. And if Bush somehow gets a second term (heaven forbid)...the next time he decides to invade a 'so-called' terrorist country, Harper will be shipping our kids off! I say let's start the protests now!
From: Nanaimo B.C. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bars
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6073

posted 12 June 2004 12:41 AM      Profile for bars     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sallam my friend it is time for the palestinian refugees to settle down someplace. Nowhere else in the history of the world has one people been bandied about so by its supposed friends. Call it bad advise or just plain foolishness but they have been sold a bill of goods by the arab league and have bought into hating thier jewish brother palestinians. Peace has been available for generations now and we are all waiting for you poor put upon folk to follow through with a signal that you are ready to really settle. Most refugees settle within a generation or two, we are waiting for you. Truely
From: toronto canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 12 June 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Hi,

I ahve acouple of questions, one about refugees and right to return in general, one about Palestinian refugees specifically. I hope someone might be able to answer.

1. Is a refugee's right to return inheritable? In other words, is it supposed to apply to children who were born (and are therefore presumably entitled to citizenship) in the country of refuge, not the country of the parent refugee's origin?

2. This has always confused me: why are there still refugee camps in Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian territories/not Israel)? Is there a policy of the occupation which prevents those areas from just becoming regular towns, or is there some other reason?

Thanks.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
bars
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6073

posted 13 June 2004 01:50 AM      Profile for bars     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi PDN, Just a quick look at the UN resolutions starting in 1948 will reveal language(English) that is designed to encourage reconciliation and peace.
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948

Article 11 states:
"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;"

The full text of the Resolution is here.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948

Article 13(2) states:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

Article 17(2) states:
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

The full text of the UDoHR is here.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Article 12(4) states:
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

The full text of the ICCPR is here. As of 8 January 2002, 147 States are parties to the ICCPR, including Israel and all the surrounding Arab States.

The Human Rights Committee, the authoritative U.N. body for interpreting the ICCPR has made "General Comment No. 27" on this article. It states in paragraph 19:

"The right of a person to enter his or her own country recognizes the special relationship of a person to that country. The right has various facets. It implies the right to remain in one's own country. It includes not only the right to return after having left one's own country; it may also entitle a person to come to the country for the first time if he or she was born outside the country (for example, if that country is the person's State of nationality). The right to return is of the utmost importance for refugees seeking voluntary repatriation. It also implies prohibition of enforced population transfers or mass expulsions to other countries."

The full text of this General Comment is available here.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965

Article 5 states:
"[...]States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: [...]
(d)(ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;"

This is typical of the doctrines advocated at the creation of the state of Israel by the UN and relating directly to the settlement of all claims resulting from this creation. The sad facts of the matter point to missed opportunities to settle these claims due to the one central problem of the entire affair; historically the Arab states refusal to make peace with the state of Israel.


From: toronto canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 17 July 2005 07:17 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I started this a long time ago, and didn't notice anyone posted in this thread.
I'm bumping this in the hope more people interested in supporting international peace/justice will read it. I hope it remains on topic: refugees from a human rights perspective, not a political opinion thread about who's fault it is.
Concerning PDN's questions, sorry for the late reply:
quote:
Is a refugee's right to return inheritable?

The AI page I linked to in the opening post explains how rights extend to decendents. bars also provided the relevant text.

quote:
why are there still refugee camps in Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian territories/not Israel)?

Palestinian refugees are still refugees because they are unable to exercise their basic human right to return to their homes of origin.

As far as I know roughly a third of the population in the west bank are refugees, while in Gaza, refugees make up about two thirds of the population. Possibly a third of those refugees still live in refugee camps.
When the camps were first created, they were impromotu shelters, as it was expected that the refugees would return once fighting ended. Gradually these were replaced with cheap housing, and self-made semi-permanent structures. Refugee camps today have developed into slums and many are about as developed as surrounding "regular" poor towns.
Many refugees who had relatives in towns and villages not occupied in 1948 were able to move there, others were lucky enough to find work outside camps to start new lives. But the economic and political restrictions on the remaining refugees have kept them stuck in the camps. Almost all refugees left their possesions in their original homes and had to rebuild there lives again in extreme poverty. But poverty has kept many of them and their children stuck in the camps, dependent on aid and charity to stay alive.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 July 2005 07:09 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is typical of the doctrines advocated at the creation of the state of Israel by the UN and relating directly to the settlement of all claims resulting from this creation. The sad facts of the matter point to missed opportunities to settle these claims due to the one central problem of the entire affair; historically the Arab states refusal to make peace with the state of Israel.

The idea that the Arab states refused to make peace with Israel is a throughly discredited myth. Even if true it would have no bearing on the right of the Palestinians to return. Israel refused Arab peace feelers in part to avoid the pressure to implement refugee return; by maintaining a warlike state, they could argue extenuating circumstances. But it's nonsense, nor does the myth explain why Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine, creating the refugee problem in the first place.

The reality is that the refugee problem was created delibrately by Israel because there was ever any "Jewish majority" out of which to create a state; Zionists never had any intention of letting refugees return, which would have damaged or destroyed the post-expulsion "majority"; and policies of the Arab states were completely beside the point (but in fact, the record shows they sought peace but were repeatly rebuffed by Israel.)


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 July 2005 07:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the first post IS focused on Israel/Palestine in particular, and therefore I'm going to move this thread to the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ineedanisland
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9910

posted 18 July 2005 08:02 PM      Profile for ineedanisland     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How many people could in theory take advantage of their "right to return" at this point, and how many are likely to do so?

Ethnic/religious conflict aside, would the infrastructure, services, economy etc. of present-day Israel be capable of supporting this influx?

Could Israel absorb the refugees by suspending all other immigration for the next few years?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 July 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Ethnic/religious conflict aside, would the infrastructure, services, economy etc. of present-day Israel be capable of supporting this influx?

Zionists often claim that Israel can't handle an influx of refugees, but that claim is almost comical. The State of Israel has the single most developed and systematic immigrant absorption infrastructure in the world. They've been doing it for decades. In the first ten years of the state's existence, it absorbed hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly Jewish Arabs, doubling its population. More recently, a million Russian Jews (and non-Jews) were assimilated in the 90s.

The capability is there; only the will is lacking.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 July 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life

...and...

Zones of indistinction — security, terror, and bare life (LNC)

...may be of theoretical interest. From the second link:


quote:
The homo sacer is neither human nor divine. The life of the homo sacer belongs to humans in so far as it cannot be sacrificed and does not belong to it in so far as it can be killed without the commission of homicide.

Palestinians are homo sacer. Not 'holy' enough to be sacrificed (i.e. they don't belong to the set of citizens/humanity) but able to have just about anything done to them without incurring legal/moral censure.

[ 19 July 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 July 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:
2. This has always confused me: why are there still refugee camps in Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian territories/not Israel)? Is there a policy of the occupation which prevents those areas from just becoming regular towns, or is there some other reason?

Thanks.



Israel is the de jure power in the WB and Gaza Strip. International law is interesting in that even though the overall legality of an occupation may be in question, while that occupation continues, the occupying power has rules and regulations it is supposed to follow in regard to the local population - regardless of that population's citizenship. Israel has, to say the least, failed in a number of those obligations.

One of the reasons that jumps to mind is that if Israel assumed full sovereignty over the WB and Gaza (or at least the parts containing Palestinians) those occupants would then come under Israeli law proper and would be conferred the rights of citizens.

The reason that Israel has not done this are obvious - the demographic balance in Israel would shift in favour of Arabs and Israel would cease to be the 'Jewish State' at least insofar as that is presently defined in a narrow ethnocratic manner.

[ 19 July 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 July 2005 12:31 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ineedanisland:
How many people could in theory take advantage of their "right to return" at this point, and how many are likely to do so?

Ethnic/religious conflict aside, would the infrastructure, services, economy etc. of present-day Israel be capable of supporting this influx?

Could Israel absorb the refugees by suspending all other immigration for the next few years?



Many Palestinians have already said that they are not that interested in an actual Return to Israel. However, they are not prepared to view the right as a mere bargaining chip, which Israel does. This is because they would really like to hear a contrite and honest admission from Israel that it shares a great proportion of the blame for their refugee status. Apologies often go a long way, no matter how egregious the crime.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 19 July 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How many people could in theory take advantage of their "right to return" at this point, and how many are likely to do so?
At this point of time no refugee from territory under Israeli jurisdiction is able to excersize their right to return. Not even those with Israeli citizenship or even residents of 1967 occupied territories, who remain to this day "internally displaced persons". Excersizing the right to return is only possible when conditions change so that it is safe for refugees to return to their original homes, and are allowed the freedom to return if they choose to.

As for numbers:

quote:
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).

Legally all of them can excersize the right to return. As for how many actually would when given a free choice, I don't believe any survey could give you the answer.
When conditions change people's attitudes will change as well. Many Palestinian refugees who say they will not return don't trust or can't stand the idea of living near Jews, but if policies change, so may their attitudes to living in a shared land. And many of those strongly insisting on return today, may find that once given the choice to retun to their country that it isn't as they hoped it would be, or that they prefer to live somewhere else.
But whatever their choices may be it is irrelevant to their right to choose.

Concerning the logistics of return, I recommend taking a look at the excellent work of Salman Abu Sitta in "From Refugees To Citizens At Home", which shows, at least theoretically, how almost all refugees can be repatriated, with minimum impact on existing residents.


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 July 2005 12:57 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:

http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=1597

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/arabjew.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iraqijews.html


Oh and by the way which exact "laws" are you referring to?

quote:
Legally all of them can excersize the "right to return"

[ 22 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 July 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one is saying that Jewish refugees should not be allowed to claim there rights. What does that have to do with the individual rights of Palestinians?

Are you saying that because some Jewish people over in Palestine kicked some Palestinians off their land that those same Palestinians have a right to go to vancouver and kick you out of your house. No of course not. Why?

Because the individual actions of people in Palestine have absolutely no relationship to the actions of indivduals elsewhere, and you are not collectively responsible for the actions of Jews elsewhere.

These are simply two different issues.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 July 2005 01:53 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes I am saying they are the same issue. Your analogy (although clever ) is historically inaccurate.

I am saying IF the Palestinian have a LEGAL right to return (so far I haven't seen a posting indicating which LAW is applicable) then the the Jewish Arabs expelled persecuted and imprisoned MUST be part of the equation.
It's clear that any claim of the so-called Palestinian ROR is going to be a deal breaker for any peace. So I see compensation for their "proveable" losses and in that case compensation for Jewish Arabs is highly relevant.(I fully expect you will reply with "Oh but those Jews went to Israel" which is factually incorrect and not relevant.)
How about more solutions and less rhetoric?

[ 22 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 July 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you making an issue of it when most of the people in question, the Arab jews themselves are not? Why is is suddenly tied into the equation, when Israel itself never even brings it up?

And why is an Arab peasant in Palestine personally responsible for the actions of the Morrocan government? Are you directly responsible for Sabra and Shatila because you happen to be Jewish?

IN-DIV-DUAL RIGHT.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 22 July 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech I applaud your vision here. It seems to me that compensation is the best route to take for both Jewish and Palestinian refugees in what is otherwise a very tortuous road.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 July 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Mac, you are collectively responsible for Sabra and Shatila, merely because of the fact of your heritage.

This must be the case given that Palestinians are being made collectively responsible for th actions of Arabs in Morocco, merely because of the fact of their heritage.

Nice.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 July 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So Mac, you are collectively responsible for Sabra and Shatila, merely because of the fact of your heritage.

This must be the case given that Palestinians are being made collectively responsible for th actions of Arabs in Morocco, merely because of the fact of their heritage.

Nice.


Nice try to derail with irrelevant and factually incorrect facts. Just beat the Sabra and Sahtila (unproven allegations of responsibility) to death!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 July 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, he was making an analogy between two similar but unrelated examples.

The point is now made, so lets continue with the discussion so this doesn't get into a sniping match.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 22 July 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So Mac, you are collectively responsible for Sabra and Shatila, merely because of the fact of your heritage.

This must be the case given that Palestinians are being made collectively responsible for th actions of Arabs in Morocco, merely because of the fact of their heritage.

Nice.


No one is being made collectively responsible for anything. All we are sayting is that we need to find a justifiable solution to two equally vexing problems. Compensation is certainly a potential solution.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 July 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle
Yes you are right. I apologize for any attitude on my part. It's just that the rhetoric gets tiresome...still no excuse.

Mac I agree. Compensation if applicable is a solution.

[ 22 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 July 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ineedanisland:

Ethnic/religious conflict aside, would the infrastructure, services, economy etc. of present-day Israel be capable of supporting this influx?


Apparently yes:

quote:
The other day I received an email from an English friend of mine and he said "it seems that the Jewish National Fund (JNF) has stolen a piece of your writing", and I said "How?"

He said "go to the website and you'll find that it quotes your statement about 80% of the Jews still living in about 15% of the area of Israel and the site calls for the Jews everywhere to come and populate Galilee and the Negev because they are still empty".

I have found that 80% of Israeli Jews live in 15% of present-day Israel. Meanwhile, the land of the Palestinian refugees is controlled only by 1.5% of the Israeli population.

And we have found by looking at maps, both old and new, that 90% of village sites are still vacant today. We also have complete records of who the refugees are, where they are today, their original villages in Palestine, and location and extent of their properties.

Now if they admit that and they are calling for more immigrants, to come to the homes and properties of the Palestinians, in the year 2005, that is a case of travesty of justice and no self-respecting civilised person in this world today should accept that.

By what scale or measure is it that the refugees in Gaza live only five kilometres away from their homes, to which they cannot return, and Israel is seeking out obscure tribes in India and Guatemala, and bringing them over in a hurry to populate the land which belongs to the refugees?



Palestinian right of return is feasible

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 July 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech. Do you have individual rights?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 July 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Michelle
Yes you are right. I apologize for any attitude on my part. It's just that the rhetoric gets tiresome...still no excuse.

That's okay - it wasn't a warning or anything. Just wanted to stick my nose in before anything started.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 July 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really wasn't going to go there. I am more in the way of asking if Peech has any "indivdual rights," or wether I can go over to his place and take his TV tonight.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 23 July 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Durable Solutions:
quote:
Durable solutions to refugee flows include repatriation, host country integration and third country resettlement. Of the three solutions only repatriation or return is recognized as an individual right under international law. Voluntariness or refugee choice is the key principle governing these solutions. Refugees also have an individual right to housing and property restitution and compensation for damages and losses.

concerning compensation:

quote:
All refugees and displaced persons have a right to compensation for gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
...
The right of refugees and displaced persons to compensation is anchored in several bodies of international law. Under the Law of State Responsibility states are responsible for the commission of an internationally wrongful act.
...
Under international refugee law states have focused on return and housing and property restitution rather than refugee compensation. Compensation is not a substitute for return and restitution.

The right to return involves all human beings. I believe denying this right to any group of people anywhere, can be used as an excuse to deny it to any other people.
Unfortunately, when faced with issue of refugees, the Israeli and U.S. government have a deliberate policy of tying the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries with that of others. Such a policy, which treats Jewish and Arab people differently from other human beings, is used as a means to confuse, delay, and possibly eliminate laws which protect refugees from international law, and peace agreements. Such a policy not only endangers Arabs and Jews, but all people who could lose legal protection as refugees.

from MADRE's backgrounder:

quote:
What is the "population exchange" argument?

A Zionist view: Between 1948-1956, 450,000 Jews immigrated to Israel from Arab countries where their families had lived for generations. Israel claims that this migration and the Palestinian exodus of 1948 constitute a "population exchange" that nullifies the Palestinian right of return.

  • However, no reciprocal exchange occurred. The vast majority of Palestinians were displaced to the West Bank and Gaza in 1948, not to the Arab countries from which Jews emigrated.
  • Some of the immigrants from Arab countries were persecuted by their governments, who were at war with Israel. Many lost all of their property. Israel (supported by the US) seeks to use Jewish property losses in Arab countries to mitigate Palestinian claims to property lost in 1948.
  • Notwithstanding the racist premise that "all Arabs are interchangeable," there is no relationship between the gains of those Arab governments that confiscated Jewish property and the losses of Palestinians.

  • Jews whose property was illegally confiscated have the same right to compensation as Palestinians and others. This is an individual right. The government of Israel is not entitled to lay claim to their property in order to reduce its debt to Palestinians.


[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 01:12 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the population exchange is the solution. I just pointed out the issue because it is not often discussed and also indicates complexity and finally because I feel earnestly that all Arab countries should share a responsibility to the Palestinians for support and assistance which apart for lip service and fostering terrorism have done precious little. Secondly there is an issue of how many Palestinians deserve rights of compensation because those number are capable of being exaggerated (descendants of descendants of descendants) as can relatives of Arab Jews displaced. So how far back do we go? I just raise these issues.
Personally I do not think the "law" of return (no one here has pointed to an actual "law" IN resolutions are NOT law and are extremely political...that is manipulated by the members who "craft" them) is unworkable and compensation is.

And Cue you can have my TV. Seriously I don't follow your "individual" right analogy. But does it really mater?

PS:
Salaam:
I am going to challenge all your sources on the same basis materialI have posted is criticized: biased, lobby group sources. Therefore not independent or objective.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you, as a person, have rights?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
what is your point?

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 01:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Answering the question is part of the explanation.

Do you, as a person, have "rights" that attach to you personally?

You know, like the right to a fair trial.

PS: I'll come over to get the TV tomorrow, It's too late tonight.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 01:25 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Depends what you mean as rights (it would take hours to answer the question)

What do you mean by rights?
2 can play this game.

PS
is a 20" set ok for you?

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had hoped that you would help me demonstrate what I am trying to get across by obliging me by answering the question, which lies at the heart of my discussion. Will you? It would be nice.

And the 2 hour discussion can follow from that, after I make my demostration. The demonstration might serve as a good basis for that discussion.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Why don't you answer it?

Here let me help you

PEECH
Cue, do you believe in individual rights?.

CUE
(glancing at his pocket reminder card from the PCC)
Sure! I do!

PEECH
That's great!

(Fade To Black)

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 01:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe I have rights. You are correct. However, the fact that you (a Zionist) seems to be having a problem deciding whether or not you, or anyone else has rights might be indicative of a problem here. A basic moral philosophical problem.

I'll put this in perspective for you. Do Israeli civilians sitting in Pizzarias have the "right to life," for instance, or can any Palestinian Hamas activist just walk up and blow them up?

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 23 July 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, protecting refugees and displaced people is the responsibility of any host country where refugees may be. The origin or ethnicity of the refugees is not, and should not be the issue here. As for determining who is a refugee, you can go read Amnesty International's policy statement, which I've linked to in the first post.

As for my sources, I stating in the begining of this thread that I want to discuss the issue from a human rights perspective. I am very aware, as I'm sure everyone else is, of other perspectives which don't favour human rights.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by salaam:
Peech, protecting refugees and displaced people is the responsibility of any host country where refugees may be. The origin or ethnicity of the refugees is not, and should not be the issue here. As for determining who is a refugee, you can go read Amnesty International's policy statement, which I've linked to in the first post.

As for my sources, I stating in the beginning of this thread that I want to discuss the issue from a human rights perspective. I am very aware, as I'm sure everyone else is, of other perspectives which don't favour human rights.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: salaam ]


I agree with you which is why I say Jordan and other countries in the Middle East should share responsibility for the Palestinians. It's time to walk the walk and not just talk. I think even when (notice I didn't say if) there is a Palestinian state, without help from ALL nations to maintain it, and build an infra structure, not much will change.

Finally I am still waiting for someone to point to the "law" which stipulates or codifies the "Law of Return". (UN resolutions are not law and are woefully biased.)


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]I believe I have rights. You are correct. However, the fact that you (a Zionist) seems to be having a problem deciding whether or not you, or anyone else has rights might be indicative of a problem here. A basic moral philosophical problem.

I'll put this in perspective for you. Do Israeli civilians sitting in Pizzarias have the "right to life," for instance, or can any Palestinian Hamas activist just walk up and blow them up?


Interesting how you can turn words around (even so few of 'em) from responses....and then use the word "Zionist" as if it it's repugnant or incongruent to democratic rights. I NEVER said or even implied any such things. (BTW There are many who DO believe that Hamas has this right as it is legitimate resistance similar to the FFI during WWII and that all Israelis are legitimate targets.) I just don't like to be baited or manipulated (not that that ever happens on Babble. ) So how about this for a really novel idea....why not just state your point? I'm sure many will find it interesting and worthy of discussion.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am trying to acertain some basic principles, such as the existance of rights. You have avoided answering. What am I supposed to make of that? I was trying to do so in the abstract so that we could define what the terms of our discussion were.

You weren'r interested in a discussion of rights. Why is that? Is that because a discussion of rights interferes with your basic belief's of what you want?

I asked you a harmless question. Do you, or do you not have individual rights?

I suggest that if you don't have individual rights then neither do the individuals who (civilian or otherwise) are killed in suicide bombings. Niether do Palestinians for that matter.

The fact is that the issue of 'indivudal rights' is the central issue of all of these discussion about what is right and wrong. If you don't accord yourself, or others 'rights' then you have estbalished the principle of lawlessness as the basis of human relations.

If that is the case then yes, according to you it is just fine for Palestinians to kill whatever Israelis they want, where ever and when ever and through whatever means. And who really cares?

According to you.

As for the "point" I was trying to make, I have made it over and over again, and so far you do not seem to have understood. That is why I asked you the question about wether or not people as indivudals (including yourself) have rights. Most people don't have a problem coming up with an answer to that.

Of course you don't have to answer that or any other questions, but seeing as you seem interested in having some kind of communincation about this issue of "refugees and rights," I thought it might be valuable to establish what a "right" is.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Of course I believe in individual and human rights...I just don't like being manipulated or baited.
Apparently you "needed" this response from me. So now you have it! I jst don't understand why if you have a statement to make (which apprently you do) you need to "use me" as an example.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen Peech, I wasnt trying to bait you. I was trying to try another approach to an arguement, but working from the ground up from base principles, without a lot of chaff of competing historical narratives, which, you may have noticed don't always seem to coincide.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 23 July 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
OK I accept that.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to go to a B-D party but I'll be back. Cheers!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 23 July 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
However, the fact that you (a Zionist) seems to be having a problem deciding whether or not you, or anyone else has rights might be indicative of a problem here. A basic moral philosophical problem.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


In reading this discussion between Peech and Cueball I am left somewhat perplexed that Cue would extrapolate the fact that Peech is "...having a problem deciding whether or not you, or anyone else has rights". I simply did not see it that way. Peech was wary of Cue's intentions and Cue then turned it into something more sinister.

As for the "Zionist" description I'm sure Cue meant it in a non pajoritive way.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 July 2005 07:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or maybe Peech was being deliberately obtuse, something you're more than a little familiar with.

The question of whether people have individual rights emanates from their status as human beings, no more, no less.

It is therefore clearly the case that displaced peoples have the right to agitate individually or collectively for restitution, but anyone who claims to speak for them had better darn well get permission first.

This is why the Government of Israel can't just unilaterally claim to speak on behalf of "all Jews". It can certainly claim to speak on behalf of those who voted in an Israeli election, though.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

In reading this discussion between Peech and Cueball I am left somewhat perplexed that Cue would extrapolate the fact that Peech is "...having a problem deciding whether or not you, or anyone else has rights". I simply did not see it that way. Peech was wary of Cue's intentions and Cue then turned it into something more sinister.

As for the "Zionist" description I'm sure Cue meant it in a non pajoritive way.


I find it intereseting that you would want to intervene in this discussion in order to raise an objection already resolved by the two participants in the discussion. It seems that you are unhappy that the point was resolved and are seeking to reignite the contentions between the two parties in order to prevent the continuance of that discussion as agreed to by the parties involved.

Where have I seen this kind of game before?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 July 2005 08:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, Macabee, how about leaving the moderating to me? Especially if people manage to resolve things themselves.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 July 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, here is something that happened to me. This is all absolutely true:

A while back, actually many moons ago I used to play in this rock band. There were three principal people involved. Myself, Chris and Evan. Evan was the bass player, I played guitar, and Chris also played guitar. Unfortuantely, Chris was quite poor, though an excelent guitar player, and had no guitar, so I lent him one of mine. Evan was also a very good player and came complete with all his own gear. Things went great for a while even though we had no drummer.

Aside from the band Evan and Chris also had another business relationship with each other that I had no part of. The result of that relatioship was that Chris ended up owing $150 to Evan. I was completely unaware of any of this until one day, Chris phoned to tell me that someone had broken into his home and stolen my guitar. Later, it became evident that the person who had stolen my guitar was Evan, and that he had done so to put preassure on Chris to pay his debt. Evan it turned out had actually also pawned my guitar.

Evan insisted that this was all Chris's fault because of the bad debt. Chris swore of any repsonsibility for the guitar, and also used the fact that Evan had broken into his place to steal my guitar as a justification for not paying the debt, so that Evan could unpawn it and return it to me, since Evan had already gotten the money owed from the pawnshop.

Wow! You can imagine I was hopping mad about my friends and their sleezy ways.

Peech, my question to you is this: At what point in time did I give up my individual right of ownership of my property so that Chris and Evan use my Ibanez Roadstar II (with a starburst finish and a wammy bar) as collateral in their business relationship?

* Evan was a little unstable too, and not to long after this incident started wandering around in a white robe going up to young ladies and asking them: "How now, brown tao?" But that is really irrelevant to the story except because it is kind of funny.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 01:57 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Dr Conway : I was not being "deliberately obtuse" and I quite frankly take issue with your incorrect assumption.

Cue:

It's an interesting question because in law if the guy who "took" your guitar and was owed money by the guy you loaned it to, and he had no "notice" of the fact that the guitar was yours,(and acted in good faith) then I am afraid that he took it "legally" in satisfaction of a debt. If it was stolen then he was in bad faith regardless of who had title to the guitar. So I am afraid it's not really black and white although if it was my guitar I would be royally pissed off and would be glad if he ended up wandering down the street muttering inanely!

Now if you are trying to use this example to justify the "law" of return...then I am not really following you.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 02:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually by law in Canada, Evan has no right to touch anything in compensation of the dbt, except through legal procedure. You might argue that he had a moral right to pursues the action that he did, but that is another story because Evan knew the guitar was mine. Part of his intention was to get me to put preassure on Chris to repay the debt.

But aside from their dispute, Chris still is still obliged to return my guitar, right? Niether Chris nor Evan has any right to use my guitar as part of their dispute. Am I right. It is still my guitar, which Chris is obliged to return to me despite whatever is goin on between them, right?

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 July 2005 04:17 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Hannah Arendt and the "Right to Have Rights"
From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
ineedanisland
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9910

posted 24 July 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for ineedanisland     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel's defenders often point, with some justification, to its superiority to its Arab neighbours in human rights. Why can't this apply to the question of refugees also? Did Israel wait for Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. to allow free elections, a free media, an independent and (reasonably) fair judicial system, rights for gays and lesbians, etc. before doing likewise? Of course not. So why demand that the Arab countries do the right thing by the Jewish refugees as a necessary condition for Israel doing the right thing by the Palestinian refugees? These are people driven from their homes in conditions of violence and the threat of violence; it's now safe to return home (apart from suicide bombers targeting Jewish and Arab Israelis indiscriminately); so let them come home. Show that Israel doesn't have to stoop to the level of its enemies.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 24 July 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, Macabee, how about leaving the moderating to me? Especially if people manage to resolve things themselves.
No problem Michelle. And Im sure you meant to say a similar thing to Dr. Conwway who engaged in direct baiting.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 July 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Or maybe Peech was being deliberately obtuse, something you're more than a little familiar with.

The question of whether people have individual rights emanates from their status as human beings, no more, no less.


The fiend.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 02:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
I am not totally in agreement with your legal interpretation so let's cut to the chase (at least where I think you are going). I think the ACTUAL displaced Palestinians have rights. But they will not have the right to "return". Why? because it won't be practical (who is or was a Palestinian, who was legitimately displaced and where is the cut off point in generations) and it's not acceptable to most Israelis as it will destabilize the country (of today.) I think the only practical solution is an enquiry (sort of a reconciliation one) and compensation where applicable. Personally I think the so-called "right" of return is being used as a sword. Most Palestinians will NEVER return. But as long as it's denied they WANT it.

Secondly since you are fond of hypothetical questions and are a progressive person, let me ask you this; why isn't there as much concern about other so-called displaced persons; Turks, Armenians (who were massacred and driven out by the Turks),Marsh Arabs (from Iraq), Jews (from everywhere...Europe, Arab countries, Africans (as we speak Muslims in Sudan are exterminating and displacing Africans), First nations peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, French (Acadians) from Quebec, Nova Scotia, Protestants from France, and on and on.

One of the real problems I have with the Palestinians "refuge problem" is that it is a cause celeb where as the other examples are not . SO Cue why is that? Why is there a double standard?

And thirdly since apart from 1948, when the Palestinians left or were driven out or both, Israel was never at war with Palestinians. Other countries mistreated them, Jordon, Syria, Iraq, S.A and even Egypt where all countries that abused them, kept them in camps and BTW refused to let them own land, vote or pass on title to their heirs. So why is that?

And finally the reason I keep bringing up the plight of Arab Jews and the relationship of all Arab countries into the equation is because it is an equation. It is NOT all of Israel's fault. Peace and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians in their own state can never happen without co-operation and support (financial too) from ALL states in the region. So Cue why is that this hasn't happened?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

The fiend.


Yes I agree Al Q I am a friend I mean fiend!
Just ask Cue I offered him a TV!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 July 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question of whether rights are inherent has come up before, and it is useful to translate from the general case to this specific one.

First of all, a disclaimer: I am guilty of having argued both sides of this issue. I suppose it depends on how cynical I feel on the day I argue the topic.

That having been said, I have argued that either:

  • 1. Rights are nothing more than privileges, generally agreed upon. This is evident in the fact that countries like the Soviet Union had flowery constitutions granting people all kinds of rights, few of which the government put any faith in, or any legal force behind.
  • 2. Rights are inherent to human beings by virtue of their status as human beings. This is not an argument that requires us to have been divinely created. It simply requires us all to recognize that the true uniqueness of each human being is written in our DNA, and it is this which should lead us to appreciate each others' fundamental right to life, liberty, and so on.

I now offer a synthesis of what appears to be a mutually exclusive set of arguments:

In this context it becomes important to recognize that the struggle for existing rights, or expanded rights, is therefore a continuous one, at all times and places. If we agree that rights, such as those in the UNDHR, are privileges accorded all people by virtue of their status as human beings, then it is perforce necessary for those who agree that these are fundamental enough that all of us should enjoy them, then it is imperative to emphasize their universality.

As such, in this context each person "owns" his or her own individual rights and does not implicitly give up the privilege of exerting those rights to any supra-individual body merely by virtue of his or her religion or national identity or anything else.

It is on this basis that I can state that NAMBLA does not speak for me, since I am a homosexual not a pedophile, and the two are not equivalent no matter how much NAMBLA may try to slither into the ranks.

It is on this basis that I voluntarily consent to having the Government of Canada enforce my rights on my behalf through the social contract, which I have accepted by remaining within the country upon attaining the age of majority.

It is therefore on this basis that the Government of Israel cannot perforce claim to speak for "all Jews" when it tries to exert the right of claim for compensation of lost property against other Governments.

On review, there appears to be a contradiction between what I have stated above and what I state re: Israel.

The contradiction is resolved when it is made clear that the Government of Canada enforces my rights against other individuals who transgress on those rights, while the Government of Israel is attempting to enforce peoples' rights against other collective bodies, and not individuals.

It is the distinction between the Government of Canada charging someone with theft for stealing my car, and the Government of Canada attempting to appropriate my right of compensation for lost property by attempting to put a claim against, say, the Government of the United States.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:
I am not totally in agreement with your legal interpretation so let's cut to the chase (at least where I think you are going). I think the ACTUAL displaced Palestinians have rights. But they will not have the right to "return". Why? because it won't be practical (who is or was a Palestinian, who was legitimately displaced and where is the cut off point in generations) and it's not acceptable to most Israelis as it will destabilize the country (of today.) I think the only practical solution is an enquiry (sort of a reconciliation one) and compensation where applicable. Personally I think the so-called "right" of return is being used as a sword. Most Palestinians will NEVER return. But as long as it's denied they WANT it.

I am more than willing at some later point to get into a discussion of the various details of the dispute between Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians, I also will entertain your questions about these apparent inconsistencies.

But, as I said earlier, my example and my line of discussion was intended to remove the issue of rights from the competing historical narratives.

This is why I asked you: "At what point in time did I give up my individual right of ownership of my property so that Chris and Evan use my Ibanez Roadstar II (with a starburst finish and a wammy bar) as collateral in their business relationship?"

You raised a specific question about the context and I answered directly and matter of factly. Now that I have done so I was hoping that you would do the same. Will you?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
No problem Michelle. And Im sure you meant to say a similar thing to Dr. Conwway who engaged in direct baiting.

Would it kill you to mind your own business? I have already given DrConway a warning in another thread, and I've told both you and him to knock off your sniping in yet another (which would have been a warning for both of you had it been in this forum).

As I said before, you can leave the moderating to me. I don't need a hall monitor, thanks. I hate it when you try to knock threads off topic by getting into meta conversations about the moderating or whether people are breaking the rules, and the next time you do it, it's going to earn you a warning.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 July 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question of individual versus collective rights is also crucial in this context. I should have addressed this before, but better late than never.

Individual rights are easily and clearly defined. They amount to preservation of one's personal integrity, both physically and mentally, and the freedom to live as one pleases as long as no harm is committed against other humans.

Collective rights are not so clearly defined. What if someone, assumed to be part of a collective group of people, states that he or she does not want to be considered as such?

And particularly, when collective rights clash, how do we know who to assign blame to and who not to assign blame to?

Yes, there are collectivist impulses and drives in human society, but as I see it, these collectivist aspects of society serve primarily as an extension of the social-animal nature of human beings, and the clearest and best expression of these is when they are aimed at ameliorating the condition of individuals.

For example, the welfare state works best when it acts to remedy the condition of the poor without regard to any other aspect except economic status. (Which, incidentally, is the fairest way to do things, but that's another topic.)

I am not sure I have been as clear as I would have liked. I confess that trying to hybridize two divergent views on the origin of human rights and applying this analysis to the question of whether governments always speak for their citizens (or should do so in the first place) in all cases is a bit challenging.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This is why I asked you: "At what point in time did I give up my individual right of ownership of my property so that Chris and Evan use my Ibanez Roadstar II (with a starburst finish and a wammy bar) as collateral in their business relationship?"



In the framework of the scenario you gave , you did not. However if for example Chris (the original loaner) had pawned it or if he was sin arrears on his rent and his landlord took the guitar on his.her lien and sold it in "good faith" then you would lose your rights. So it's a question of good faith and notice and in the narrow context of the example you gave.....Even did not have good faith and may have even had notice therefore your title (right of ownership as you put it)subsists.

But as Dr. Conway so thoroughly put it individual rights and collective rights are complex.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 July 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
In the framework of the scenario you gave , you did not. However if for example Chris (the original loaner) had pawned it or if he was sin arrears on his rent and his landlord took the guitar on his.her lien and sold it in "good faith" then you would lose your rights. So it's a question of good faith and notice and in the narrow context of the example you gave.....Even did not have good faith and may have even had notice therefore your title (right of ownership as you put it)subsists.

Simple answer: Whoever took the guitar committed conversion by theft. The law has a very clear answer on that, and it's called a jail sentence.

quote:
But as Dr. Conway so thoroughly put it individual rights and collective rights are complex.

To the contrary, individual rights are fairly simple.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 09:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

In the framework of the scenario you gave , you did not. However if for example Chris (the original loaner) had pawned it or if he was sin arrears on his rent and his landlord took the guitar on his.her lien and sold it in "good faith" then you would lose your rights. So it's a question of good faith and notice and in the narrow context of the example you gave.....Even did not have good faith and may have even had notice therefore your title (right of ownership as you put it)subsists.

But as Dr. Conway so thoroughly put it individual rights and collective rights are complex.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Actually that is not the way it works under the fraud laws in this country, which I know something about, because in fact the police returned the guitar to me. But that is another story. The pawnshop, had it insisted that it was their guitar would be liable under the criminal law for the crime of "conversion" of stolen property, what is known as "fencing," to most people.

Aside from that: Is Chris still responsible for returning the guitar to me or not, since it was borrowed from me, not given, no matter what his other obligations to others are?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Actually I didn't say I disagreed with you... I said "in the narrow context of the example you gave your rights subsist" and therefore, yes Chris is responsible for returning your guitar.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does it make any difference that Evan and I are both Jewish and that Chris is Gentile?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 July 2005 11:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
No.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 July 2005 11:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not just making that up, it really was the case.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I believe you! I've seen nuttier things. Unfortunately these were your "friends."
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 12:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you know what is weird? What is weird is that I have never been able to shake the feeling that that particullar stigma played a role in that issue, even though it was never expressed. You probably know that feeling.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 01:28 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yep I sure do, unfortuately . Makes you feel... well like taking a shower.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 July 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"displaced {group of people} have rights...but not {a certain basic right}... Why?
{1}it won't be practical
{2}who is or was a {group of people}
{3}who was legitimately displaced
{4}where is the cut off point
{5}it's not acceptable to {another group of people}..."

So as I understand, displaced people have some rights but not certain basic human rights because its not "practical". Its not practical for some people to have certain rights because its too hard to figure out who they are. (they are not all human?). Some people can be *legitimately displaced*! and some displaced people can't have rights depending on who their parents are. And in any case, if a certain other group of people don't want then to have rights then none of the arguments matter.

Its clear that for some people the idea of rights and laws are "complex" and maybe too difficult to understand. Its easy to see how potentially useful discussions on this board can quickly break down into "meta-topics" and useless bickering when people can't even agree on such basic concepts.

(edited 'cause angle brackets aren't allowed)

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 01:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Yep I sure do, unfortuately . Makes you feel... well like taking a shower.

So, I guess you have summised how it is that I think individual rights apply in the general context of this thread. I should think its pretty obvious, what my feelings are.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 11:27 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
I agree, but I dnon't think it's as black and white issue whenit comes to reparationsnof nations and peoples that are displaced from wars and conflict. I do however beleive that (as I have said) compensation for those diplace is teh only "workable" solution. The "right" of return will not be acceptable to most Israelis.

Now let me ask you this question, if you beleive these rights are necessary to enforce then shouldn't (certain) polotical movements of the world interefere (as they are obviously atempting)and if so then how many nations and groups of refuges should be put on the list? How far back do we go?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 25 July 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We can't go back. We can't ressurect the dead. But we can move forward, by helping the people suffering today have a chance to live in their homes in peace.
From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by salaam:
We can't go back. We can't ressurect the dead. But we can move forward, by helping the people suffering today have a chance to live in their homes in peace.

Couldn't agree more! I think most (reasonable people) would also agree. It's just question of the means to that end. And it should happen as soon as possible!

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 July 2005 08:28 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:Cue:
I agree, but I dnon't think it's as black and white issue whenit comes to reparationsnof nations and peoples that are displaced from wars and conflict. I do however beleive that (as I have said) compensation for those diplace is teh only "workable" solution. The "right" of return will not be acceptable to most Israelis.

I think there's a fundemental confusion here. Rights exist irreguardless of whether they are "workable" or not, and whether or not they are "acceptable" to the people with the tanks. Neither of those standards has anything to do with the moral and legal right of the Palestinians (or anyone) to return to their homeland.

quote:
Now let me ask you this question, if you beleive these rights are necessary to enforce then shouldn't (certain) polotical movements of the world interefere (as they are obviously atempting)and if so then how many nations and groups of refuges should be put on the list? How far back do we go?

I don't know if you are farmilar with the laws governing stautes of limitations, but one of the principles is this: a crime which continues is not covered under the staute during the time in which it persists.

We're talking about something that happened roughly fifty years ago, which continues to this day in the form of a state (the same state that expelled the Palestinians) preventing them from returning (as well as pressuring others to leave by grossly violating their human rights).

Many of those originally expelled are still alive. This is not something lost to the mists of history (like the ancient war between the Hebrews and the Romans, central to the silly claims that Zionists make over Palestine) in which all parties have altered beyond recognition. In those situations, restitution is truly complex because connections between the criminals and the victims and their modern-day heir are difficult or immpossible to establish. That is not the case with Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing. It was a contemporary crime that deserves swift restitution in the form of return.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 July 2005 08:39 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
A further thought; there are dozens if not hundreds of movements in the Jewish community dedicated to the interests of those whose rights were violated by the Nazis; demands of property resistitution; restoration of confiscated bank accounts; land claims; repairations from corporations that benifited from slave labor; the capture and prosecution of war criminals, and so on.

These crimes also happened over fifty years ago; they also resemble crimes in other times and places, such that we might ask, "How far back do we go?" But would you say that to them? Or would you tell them that they must realize that the return of land or prosecution of war criminals are not "acceptable" to the Germans or the Poles?

"Forgive and forget" is an easy doctrine when you're the one who benifited from the crime.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
RS:
To put it simply, as long as you persist in using politically loaded and inflammatory expressions (and inaccurate)such as "ethnic cleansing" and "crimes" as well as "Nazi" analogies I am not going to debate the issue further. Period.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 July 2005 10:20 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Ethnic cleansing is what took place; a crime is what it was. Period. Do we really need a thread to establish that the mass killings, harassment, threatening propaganda, attacks on noncombatants and mass expulsions took place, and that these are the very definition of ethnic cleansing? Because I think that is well-neigh undisputed among respected historians.

WWII is on point because: a) the crimes are almost exactly contemporary with those you would like to consign to the distant past, and; b) They were crimes in which Jews were the victims, rather than the perpetrators. Hence, the question of whether your attitude towards the claims of those victims is the same is entirely appropriate.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 10:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
RS:
To put it simply, as long as you persist in using politically loaded and inflammatory expressions (and inaccurate)such as "ethnic cleansing" and "crimes" as well as "Nazi" analogies I am not going to debate the issue further. Period.


Honestly Peech there is a very good case to be made for the idea that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Israel in 1948. There is no point in disupting the language used to describe what happened. But more a need to discuss what evidence there is that it was or was not an ethnic cleansing.

But Salaam did not start this thread to make that case, but to look at the realities of Palestinians whom still hold title deeds to properties on the Israeli side of the Green Line, and what can be done about that, as opposed to discussing how it is they ended up on with an army between them and the land which they own.

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, as you have essentially raised an concern based on the principle of there being a statuate of limitations on claims for compensation. Farrel has merely sited another case where claims are being made for compensation as a precedent.

Let us not forget that the greatest body of work dealing with International Human Rights law, Genocide, and the like was created as a direct response to Hitler's attack upon European Jews in ww2. In fact the term "genocide" was coined to create a legal defintion for what happened, and though it came from the experience of Jews, it was never intended to be used solely in the case of Jewsih people.

The fact remains that it is almost impossible to raise any issue of modern human rights law without at least indirectly making a reference to the Holocaust, since most Human Rights law was created as a reaction to it.

Therefore Farrel's introduction of this material is not simply gratuitous but almost forced, by the nature of the issues that we are speaking about.

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 10:57 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

I don't agree. The tossing about of legally specific and inflammatory language such as "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" is NOT ok. It's not legally accurate nor t factually correct. The fact that "some Palestinians" hold title is a matter to be reconciled once there is or at the same time as peace is negotiated. Personally I am very tired of (as I am sure the parties' negotiators are) of useless rhetoric. I agree the thread was started as a search for a solution which is why I suggested (as many others did) compensation. As long as the "right" to return is brandied about ...I guess there is no solution is there? Unless of course as RS and (and apparently you) would have it we should "put the tooth paste back in the tube". The European Jews should go back to Europe and the Palestinians should return "home" (now that those "homes" has been nicely renovated for them mind you.)
So you see Cue it's not the same as "simply" returning the guitar.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 11:01 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Ethnic cleansing is what took place; a crime is what it was.

Ethnic Cleansing are and Crimes = convictions not allegations and accusations by the "politically correct". So as long as the rhetoric persists you'll get no more discussion from me.

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It says a lot that we can not even have a discussion of about the potential for a negotiated settlement without setting pre-conditions about which parts of the Palestinian narrative, and their proposed solutions simply can not be discussed. Your demand immediatly demands that all negotiations (even a discussion of a negotiation) must take place within and agenda that is acceptable to the Israeli status quo, and as a result predetermines failure, because it insists on absolute acceeptance of the Israeli narrative, even as the basis for the agenda -- surrender not negotiation between equals.

I dont think they are going to surrender Peech, I think if anything they are going to become more intractable, angy and lethal. And one day the tables may turn... I think you should consider that last very carefully.

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 11:25 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It says a lot that we can not even have a discussion of about the potential for a negotiated settlement without setting pre-conditions about which parts of the Palestinian narrative, and their proposed solutions simply can not be discussed. I think you should consider that last very carefully.


It's one thing to insist on a narrative another on fiction. I can tell you that I have been involved in many negotiations, mediations and arbitrations and as long as one side insists on pointing the finger or makes accusations of unproven crimes there is NEVER going to be a solution. I can also assure you that the real Palestinian and Israeli negotiators leave the rhetoric at home. As you should consider very carefully in doing yourself.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 July 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Deir Yassin is not a fiction. There is not one serious historian in Israel who agrees with you on this.

They may argue about who was responsible, and the other facts of the case, but no serious Israeli historian insist that a group of armed israeli Jews did not massacre hundreds of Arab civlians. Some, like Benny Morris, argue that it was a historical necessity, and right, more or less but none say it was fiction.

Even for you to insist that it is a fiction, is an attempt to preset the agenda, so that even the discussion of the negotiation eliminates potential agreement.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 25 July 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
Stop trying to make general principle out of ONE example. I am sure I can find many examples of murder by Palestinian "freedom fighters" of such combatants as women and children (yesterday a couple were shot to death as they drove to Jerusalem.)So what? Yes there were horrible things done by all sides. SO the question is now where do we go? Once again stop trying to tar the complete picture with rhetoric and your implication that I am denying that ANY atrocities happened.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 July 2005 12:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are talking about a specific set of exmaples relating to the occurences of 1948. Benny Morris has made a list of these occurences. It is a fairly substantial list.

This list is based on forensic investigations made 40 years after the fact. If forensic investigation, corss-checked against eye-witness accounts made 40 years after the fact can establish that atrocities against Arab civilians were quite wide spread, it is logical to conclude that these "discovered" events, are also part of a wider group including a number of "undiscovered or unprovable" events, hidden by time.

Therefore, simply denying the Palestinian narrative of Nakba as ethnic cleansing is not satisfactory. I think that you should accept it as one interpretation of the events and move on, and stop complaining about the langauge used to describe it, even if that characterization makes you uncomfortable.

You might want to contest it as an act of ethnic cleansing, but I don't think calling that interpretation "fiction" cuts it at all.

After all we both know that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist, so we might as well dispense with semantics as a point of objection. We all know we are talking about expulsion/evacuation of Palestinians from Israel, and the fact that the government of Israel has not allowed persons to return, regardless of their relative guilt or innocence but simply because they are Arabs.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 July 2005 02:00 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I will only accept "guilt" when there is a conviction of a so-called crimes in a court of law not in the court of "opinion" no matter whether it is a historian or 15 Kings dancing on a table. So no Cue I need not accept "historical" documents. And spare me from the "one-man's freedom fighter" rhetoric. No "freedom fighter" kills innocent women and children dining in a restaurant no matter what the cause. Somehow you think just because allegations are repeated often enough or "documented" that they are true or are transformed into convictions. Thankfully legal systems are not based on this faulty logic. I see no point in this discussion. So you move on and get to solutions rather than pithy allegations.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 26 July 2005 03:40 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The tossing about of legally specific and inflammatory language such as "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" is NOT ok. It's not legally accurate nor t factually correct.
Nakba denial.

Nakba denial like Holocaust denial or any other atrocity denial is meant to harm and incite hatred by blaming the victims for their tragedy. This discussion and all dicussion with people who argue from this fundamentally flawed perspective will always break down as they have always broken down. You can't talk about human rights if people can't agree on what a human being is, and what it means.

Maybe another thread should be started to remind babblers of the colonialist and Zionist crimes that made the mess the middle east is today.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 July 2005 06:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
I will only accept "guilt" when there is a conviction of a so-called crimes in a court of law not in the court of "opinion" no matter whether it is a historian or 15 Kings dancing on a table. So no Cue I need not accept "historical" documents. And spare me from the "one-man's freedom fighter" rhetoric. No "freedom fighter" kills innocent women and children dining in a restaurant no matter what the cause. Somehow you think just because allegations are repeated often enough or "documented" that they are true or are transformed into convictions. Thankfully legal systems are not based on this faulty logic. I see no point in this discussion. So you move on and get to solutions rather than pithy allegations.

Excuse me. I am talking about issues relating to 1948, not 1992. You will note that the partcipants of the events of 1948 are not the same as those in 1992, and in fact if you check your calendar you will see that Deir Yassim, Quiba, and Sabra and Shatila all predate the first suicide bombing. So does, Baruch's Golstiens slaughter of praying Muslims, which inspired the first suicide bombing in case you weren't aware.

None of these events are deniable. None of them implicate all Israelis, just as no singular Palestinian attack implicates all Palestinians or Arabs for that matter. Your loose use of the principle of collective guilt is truly appauling.

Certainly you can present a list of atocities committed by Palestinians but trying to implicate the victims of Deir Yassim in the activities of Hamas is an example of a serious chronolgical disorder.

Interestingly, if you go and look at the IDF records of Palestinian attacks (not just those against civilians) between 1967 and 2000, you will find that the number of people killed by Palestinian militants averages out to 35 people a year. Based on population, that is in the neighbourhood of the murder rate of a large city. After Sharon reneged on Oslo and re-invaded the West Bank and Gaz Strip the attacks increased 10 fold.

Interesting item that, isnt it.

And spare the jive about legal processess. If Israel were concerned about legal processes, the repatriation process would be simple. Go over the records of Palestinians titles, see if they are correct, and then make a check of possible connections to militant groups, and look at filing specific charges against those individuals, and or return their property.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 July 2005 07:47 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Ethnic cleansing is what took place; a crime is what it was. Period. Do we really need a thread to establish that the mass killings, harassment, threatening propaganda, attacks on noncombatants and mass expulsions took place, and that these are the very definition of ethnic cleansing? Because I think that is well-neigh undisputed among respected historians.

WWII is on point because: a) the crimes are almost exactly contemporary with those you would like to consign to the distant past, and; b) They were crimes in which Jews were the victims, rather than the perpetrators. Hence, the question of whether your attitude towards the claims of those victims is the same is entirely appropriate.


Your continued comparision of Nazi crimes to Israel is utterly disgusting and uncalled for. If threads like this are to continue in the spirit of our mutually agreed upon parameters people like you must stop these hateful analogies.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 July 2005 08:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen. People make historical comparisons all the time, and they are often mistaken or often up for debate. In fact, in a past thread, you yourself posted an article in support of your position which compared Palestinian schools to Nazi schools during the Holocaust era. If you don't like his comparison, then give an argument for why you think the comparison is incorrect.

But you WILL "continue in the spirit of our mutually agreed upon parameters" or you will face the consequences outlined at the top of the forum.

I see that Peech handled it very well earlier in the thread. He said that he would not discuss the issue if people used those terms. He is well within his rights to set his own boundaries and withdraw if they are crossed.

rsfarrell has done nothing wrong in his post. No one has said that what happened in Israel/Palestine is exactly the same in magnitude or scope as what happened during the Holocaust. I'm sorry you don't like his argument, Macabee, but you have the choice to either ignore the argument, or to argue the point with him and tell him why you think he is incorrect. The option you don't have is to attack rsfarrell himself. And you also do not have the authority to censor this forum and tell people what they can and cannot post.

[Edited by Michelle because I seem to have picked up the spelling habit of using one "l" in rsfarrell. Sorry about that.]

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 July 2005 09:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It wasnt an anaology anyway, but a direct comparison, intended to compare the discussion subject against the other cases.

He was comparing the statuate of limitations on compensation to Palestinian for property to the statuate of limitations on compensation to Jews for lost property.

Farrel wasn't comparing Jews to Nazis. He was comparing the Palestininians to Jews. Is there a problem with that. Don't their rights compare?

I must be missing something here.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 26 July 2005 09:24 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
I don't know if you are familiar with the laws governing statutes of limitations, but one of the principles is this: a crime which continues is not covered under the statute during the time in which it persists.

Could you give a source for this? If my neighbour trespasses on my property by building his garage two feet over the boundary, and I let him steal my land by doing nothing, after ten years he owns it. Or am I mistaken?

I don't doubt that the Palestinian refugees have the right to either return or be compensated, because they are refugees. But if a given family had simply abandoned their property, wouldn't the statute of limitations apply?

quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Rights exist irreguardless of whether they are "workable" or not, and whether or not they are "acceptable" to the people with the tanks. Neither of those standards has anything to do with the moral and legal right of the Palestinians (or anyone) to return to their homeland.

Are you disagreeing with the Amnesty policy statement quoted above?

quote:
8. Amnesty International supports the return of exiles to their own homes or the vicinity of their own homes, where this is feasible. The rights of innocent third parties who may be living in the homes or on the lands of the exiles, should also be taken into account. Exiles who choose not to return are entitled to compensation for lost property; those returning should also be compensated for lost property.

quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing.

Are you trying to derail this discussion? Or can you post a link to evidence that Israel has tried to expel Israeli Arabs? The right of the Palestinian refugees do not depend on allegations of ethnic cleansing.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Salaam did not start this thread to make that case, but to look at the realities of Palestinians whom still hold title deeds to properties on the Israeli side of the Green Line, and what can be done about that, as opposed to discussing how it is they ended up on with an army between them and the land which they own.

quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Your continued comparision of Nazi crimes to Israel is utterly disgusting and uncalled for.

Disgusting, okay, but I'm sure you don't want to equate the Holocaust with Nazi confiscation of property, bank accounts, or use of slave labor, which was actually the comparison rsfarrell was making between the property rights of a community expelled in 1948 and similar rights dating from only a few years earlier.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 July 2005 09:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Are you trying to derail this discussion? Or can you post a link to evidence that Israel has tried to expel Israeli Arabs? The right of the Palestinian refugees do not depend on allegations of ethnic cleansing.

quote:
Because so many of the people who live in Israel lived through 1948, this is not a distant memory. It is not the genocide of the Native Americans in the United States. People know exactly what they did, and they know what others did. Yet they still succeed in erasing it totally from their own memory while struggling rigorously against anyone trying to present the other, unpleasant, story of 1948, in and outside Israel. If you look at Israeli textbooks, curricula, media, and political discourse you see how this chapter in Jewish history - the chapter of expulsion, colonization, massacres, rape, and the burning of villages - is totally absent. It is not there. It is replaced by a chapter of heroism, glorious campaigns and amazing stories of moral courage and superiority unheard of in any other histories of people's liberation in the 20th century. So whenever I speak of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, we must remember that not just the very terms of "ethnic cleansing" and "expulsion" are totally alien to the community and society from which I come and from where I grew up; the very history of that chapter is either distorted in the recollection of people, or totally absent.

The '48 Nakba & The Zionist Quest for its Completion -- Ilan Pappe


quote:
On April 9, 1948, members of the Irgun and the Stern Gang massacred over 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem. The Deir Yassin massacre marked the beginning of the depopulation of over 400 towns and villages, and the exodus of 750,000 Arabs; it also marked the beginning of the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe, and the creation of a Palestinian diaspora in refugee camps and in neighboring Arab countries.

Remembering Deir Yassin

quote:
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.


Ari Shavit interviews Benny Morris

quote:
At the beginning of the 1970s. I had begun to work on research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which, I hoped, would produce a Ph.D. thesis in sociology. The subject was the Zionist ideology of land and its relationship to other political doctrines. In the earlier stages of my research, I was shocked to discover that a major “purification” of the land (the term “ethnic cleansing” was unknown in that period) from its Arab Palestinian inhabitant was done during the 1948 War by the Jewish military and para-military forces. During this research I found, solely based on Israeli sources, that about 350 Arab villages were “abandoned” and their 3.25 million dunums of rural land, were confiscated and became. in several stages, the property of the Israeli state or the Jewish National Fund. I also found that Moshe Dayan, then Minister of Agriculture, disclosed that about 700,000 Arabs who “left” the territories had owned four million dunums of land.
By Baruch Kimmerling

I didn't really want to go here, but as it seems like it has become and impediment to discussion, we might as well establish that the case for ethnic cleansing is not entirely fictional as Peech would like to believe. I would like to believe otherwise too, but then there is all of the above, and more.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 July 2005 10:34 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, while I strongly disagree with you and I believe Farrell has done this to bait, I will abide by your decision.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 July 2005 11:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
and I believe Farrell has done this to bait,

Listen, I'm glad you're "abiding by my decision", but sticking that phrase in is actually NOT "abiding by my decision". It's doing what I've asked you two or three times now to refrain from doing, and that is to quit playing hall monitor and assigning ulterior motives to what other babblers are posting.

Consider this warning number one. I'm telling you right now, Macabee, you're not going to sidetrack these threads with these "meta" issues.

Also, this thread is long so I'm closing it.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca