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.
No.
And the simple reason is - how far back do you go? How do you prove that right? ... What if you are only partially descended from the original claimants - a fraction of the blood?
Nonsense
general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.
list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)
Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law
;--)
Nonsense
general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.
list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)
Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law
;--)
The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.
It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.
So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?
Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.
Indeed, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding and they cannot create law.Nonsense
general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.
list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)
Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law
;--)
The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.
It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.
So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?
Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.
You are blinded by hatred
NO general assembly resolution is binding including 181
But of course Israel and the land it contains wasn't awarded to them by UN resolution. It was land the Arabs lost in numerous acts of aggression. The Israeli's are simply the survivors.
See
United Nations Resolutions - Myths and Facts
Quote
UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:
“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].
Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.
Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:
“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2
Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:
“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3
Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been just as resolved in rejecting what he labeled the “illusion” that a General Assembly resolution can have “legislative effect.”4
Academics and renowned international law experts also agree. Professor Julius Stone illuminates this subject by pointing out:
“In his book The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations, Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz5 is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to enact or to ‘declare' or ‘determine' or ‘interpret' international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.”6
End Quote
Even security council resolutions are not nescessarily binding depending on what chapter they are listed under.
You've been shown this information again and again, its pretty obvious that your hatred, bigoted and racist views are blinding you to even the most basic of facts.
As stated, General Assembly Resolution 194 is only one of the 8 bases that confers the right of return to the Palestinians under International Law. The other 7 are sufficient.
How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
There is no hate or bigotry or racism associated with asserting that the Palestinians have a right to return to their homes. It is hateful, bigoted and racist to claim they do not.
Indeed, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding and they cannot create law.Nonsense
general assembly resolutions are FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, NOT BINDING. Your inability to accept the obvious is a reflection of your bigotry and prejudice in this matter.
list and reference each instance of international law which you believe supports your view. I suspect you consistently fail to do this for the simple reason that none exists ;--)
Note and include a reference for each within established international law such that we can all agree that you have found applicable law specific to the palestinians within binding international law
;--)
The decision addresses 7 legal bases, beyond General Assembly resolution 194 (the 8th base), that confer the right of return to the Palestinians, That's the whole point.
It also points out that, in fact, the General Assembly is the heir to the League of Nations, not the Security Council, and that is why the affairs of the League of Nations, e.g. Palestine were/are handled by the General Assembly and that for that reason GA resolutions pertaining to Palestine are, in fact, binding.
So, would you claim that General Assembly Resolution 181 is not binding?
Facts do not imply bigotry or prejudice. They are just facts.
You are blinded by hatred
NO general assembly resolution is binding including 181
But of course Israel and the land it contains wasn't awarded to them by UN resolution. It was land the Arabs lost in numerous acts of aggression. The Israeli's are simply the survivors.
See
United Nations Resolutions - Myths and Facts
Quote
UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:
“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].
Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.
Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:
“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2
Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:
“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3
Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been just as resolved in rejecting what he labeled the “illusion” that a General Assembly resolution can have “legislative effect.”4
Academics and renowned international law experts also agree. Professor Julius Stone illuminates this subject by pointing out:
“In his book The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations, Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz5 is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to enact or to ‘declare' or ‘determine' or ‘interpret' international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.”6
End Quote
Even security council resolutions are not nescessarily binding depending on what chapter they are listed under.
You've been shown this information again and again, its pretty obvious that your hatred, bigoted and racist views are blinding you to even the most basic of facts.
However, many resolutions are based on already existing international law that is binding with or without a resolution.
(COMMENT)The legal bases for return can be found in eight branches of international law: (1) inter-State nationality law, (2) law of State succession, (3) human rights law, (4) humanitarian law, (5) law of State responsibility, (6) refugee law, (7) UN law, and (8) natural/customary law. These legal foundations are briefly highlighted here.
How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
(COMMENT)How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.
It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.
If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.
How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.
It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.
If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.
How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.
It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.
If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.
But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?
How could the Christians and Muslims, the native people living in Palestine, have lost the land through their aggression when the Jews invaded from Europe. It defies logic to claim that native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from a different continent.
Monte, its funny that you don't apply this same logic to the Jewish people. How can the Jewish people, the native people who were living in Palestine, have lost land through their aggression when the Muslims invaded from Arabia? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion of people from another continent.
It is your very own argument which ultimately defeats you by demonstrating that the Jewish people are the longest-surviving, culturally recognizable native indigenous group in the area who were invaded. You readily admit two things: 1. That the Jewish people were there first and were converted, murdered (and obviously expelled). 2. That the mechanism for this was the Muslim Conquest.
If you argue for an intergenerational right of return, you are arguing FOR the right of return for the displaced Jewish people.
But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?
Another revisionist lie.
You have nothing to substantiate this claim. But I do like the admission that the Muslims did invade from Arabia ;--)
Shot yourself in the foot again Monty ;--)
But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?
Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?
But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?
Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?
Because Christianity had become the state religion of Rome several centuries earlier and those of all religions, converted to Christianity at that time.
But the Jewish people were not living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded from Arabia. What;s your point?
Where were the Jewish people, Monte? And why weren't they living in Palestine?
Because Christianity had become the state religion of Rome several centuries earlier and those of all religions, converted to Christianity at that time.
Right. Because before they were invanded and conquored by the Muslims, they were invaded and conquored by the Romans.
So, again, by your own argument, how could the native people living in Palestine have lost land through their aggression when invaded by the Romans? It defies logic to claim that the native people are the aggressors when confronted with an invasion from another continent.
The Jewish people were the native people, by your own continued admission. If you are arguing for an intergenerational right to return -- you are arguing FOR the right of return for Jewish people who were displaced and ALL of their descendants to their place of origin and native homeland.
The Jews, Samaritans, Canaanites, Greeks and others living in the area did not lose any land, they simply changed religions through the centuries. There were many different people living in what is now called Palestine when the Romans arrived. Heck, King Herod was an Arab FFS.
The Jews, Samaritans, Canaanites, Greeks and others living in the area did not lose any land, they simply changed religions through the centuries. There were many different people living in what is now called Palestine when the Romans arrived. Heck, King Herod was an Arab FFS.
Sure. You wanna go that direction? No problem . The Palestinians living in the area did not lose any land. They simply changed religion and political control in the last century. There were many different people living in the land when the Jewish people arrived (really returned) in what is now called Israel.
Again, your own argument works against you and defeats you. If a group moves into a territory through conquest and changes the demographics and culture of the place -- then they, according to your argument, assume the full rights of being indigenous. So the Jewish people, having done that successfully, are now the indigenous people.
No matter which way you cut it, your argument fails. And it fails, in all instances, because your goal is not to apply a consistent set of criteria to all groups but to create justifications for denying one specific group.
