Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case against Israel, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs - because it "looks better"What does the last bit mean?Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
Resolution 194 is non-binding.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -What does the last bit mean?Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.He misquoted Resolution 194.
Resolution 194 is non-binding.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -What does the last bit mean?Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.Resolution 194 is non-binding.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
I know q u i t e a f e w that do.I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -What does the last bit mean?Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
I know q u i t e a f e w that do.I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -What does the last bit mean?Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
And does that "touch" somehow what I just - or ever - said?I know q u i t e a f e w that do.I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -What does the last bit mean?
International law does oblige - did you never wonder why there's a thread called boycott Israel?
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
And You never deliver, You may think that international law is this code word You can use to force other behave at Your whimsies.
Couldn't be more wrong.
And does that "touch" somehow what I just - or ever - said?I know q u i t e a f e w that do.I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
Because opinionated folks who imagine that international law shines out of their ass, but can't make a coherent legal case, want to convince Palestinian Arabs that they should leave Israeli jobs -
because it "looks better"
Think about it.
UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
And You never deliver, You may think that international law is this code word You can use to force other behave at Your whimsies.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Ok, really.And does that "touch" somehow what I just - or ever - said?I know q u i t e a f e w that do.I thought about it.
You know there are other people besides the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The international law is a moral compass and Israel clearly doesn't know how to read it.
What Palestinians do might not be ethical but it isn't as moraless as what the Israelis do.
UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
And You never deliver, You may think that international law is this code word You can use to force other behave at Your whimsies.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Feel free to return when You find an international law,
that obliges Israel to open doors to a hostile population.
Ok, really.And does that "touch" somehow what I just - or ever - said?I know q u i t e a f e w that do.UN resolutions are not international law, they are a moral farce.
No country in the world should measure its' positions against the idiocy of UN, if it wants to stay independent.
And You never deliver, You may think that international law is this code word You can use to force other behave at Your whimsies.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Feel free to return when You find an international law,
that obliges Israel to open doors to a hostile population.
We're talking about different topics. I was only referring to international law. I don't know what you're getting upset about.
Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
Resolution 194 is non-binding.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
No.Ok, really.And does that "touch" somehow what I just - or ever - said?I know q u i t e a f e w that do.
And You never deliver, You may think that international law is this code word You can use to force other behave at Your whimsies.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Feel free to return when You find an international law,
that obliges Israel to open doors to a hostile population.
We're talking about different topics. I was only referring to international law. I don't know what you're getting upset about.
Your opinion is not international law.
Do I have to exlpain on fingers?
Indeed, but he missed paragraph 1He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
I don't believe he did. EoZ writes:
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 (emphasis added)
That is word-for-word from Article 11, paragraph 2 of the resolution.
Resolution 194 followed closely international law. That is the basis of the resolution.He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
Resolution 194 is non-binding.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
Smoke blowing at best.
International law doesn't oblige states to accept hostile populations.
Indeed, but he missed paragraph 1He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
I don't believe he did. EoZ writes:
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 (emphasis added)
That is word-for-word from Article 11, paragraph 2 of the resolution.
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
The options in Paragraph 2 are a matter of individual choice.
Indeed, but he missed paragraph 1He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
I don't believe he did. EoZ writes:
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 (emphasis added)
That is word-for-word from Article 11, paragraph 2 of the resolution.
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
The options in Paragraph 2 are a matter of individual choice.
Sure. But the LIVE AT PEACE is not. EoZ's point is that a property claim is not sufficient to establish an absolute right. Resettlement and compensation are adequate alternatives.
Compensation has to be viewed in the whole context of losses on both sides.
Indeed, but he missed paragraph 1He misquoted Resolution 194.A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]
(full article online)
European Court of Human Rights rulings indicate no "right of return" and that Gaza isn't occupied (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
I don't believe he did. EoZ writes:
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 (emphasis added)
That is word-for-word from Article 11, paragraph 2 of the resolution.
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
The options in Paragraph 2 are a matter of individual choice.
Compensation has to be viewed in the whole context of losses on both sides.
Absolutely. And if we use Team Palestine's rules that descendants of refugees remain refugees there are millions of Jewish refugees still waiting repatriation, resettlement and compensation. And unlike Palestinian Arab "refugees" -- Jewish refugees are outside their country of nationality and owing to their well-founded fear of persecution are unable to return and are therefore ACTUALLY refugees. We need to get on this.
Compensation has to be viewed in the whole context of losses on both sides.
Absolutely. And if we use Team Palestine's rules that descendants of refugees remain refugees there are millions of Jewish refugees still waiting repatriation, resettlement and compensation. And unlike Palestinian Arab "refugees" -- Jewish refugees are outside their country of nationality and owing to their well-founded fear of persecution are unable to return and are therefore ACTUALLY refugees. We need to get on this.
Yes. There is that.Compensation has to be viewed in the whole context of losses on both sides.
Absolutely. And if we use Team Palestine's rules that descendants of refugees remain refugees there are millions of Jewish refugees still waiting repatriation, resettlement and compensation. And unlike Palestinian Arab "refugees" -- Jewish refugees are outside their country of nationality and owing to their well-founded fear of persecution are unable to return and are therefore ACTUALLY refugees. We need to get on this.
There're lands in Syria, beyond the Golans as one example, which were taken from Jewish citizens of Syria, now Israeli citizens, that were taken by force, as a direct result of a joint Arab effort to turn the whole Jewish community in the middle east into refugees.
