Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P FPTinmore, Hollie, et al,

Hollie is correct! There is no question as to the conflict in the understanding what it means to be a Refugee in the case of the Palestinians.

... Excerpt: 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.

Terribly flawed with an unsupportable definition of so-called "refugee".

(COMMENT)

The excerpt, supra, is from a submission by Dr Mutaz M. Qafisheh (Dean, College of Law and Political Science, Hebron University Palestinian Territory) and is often used as an authority for the claim of legitimacy on the issue of "Right of Return."

(1) Inter-State Nationality Law,

✪ No "Nationality Law" - codified or customary - directly effects the disposition of territory previously under a Mandate.​

(2) Law of State Succession,

✪ The use of the phrase "State Succession" means: the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relations of the territory." (See; Part I, Article 2b, Vienna Convention of State succession in Treaty Law.) The key passage in this meaning is;"​

"in the responsibility of international relations of the territory"​

Article 12 The Principal Allied Powers have agreed to the "Mandate of Palestine."

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.​

(3) human rights law,

✪ This would mean the "Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees • Resolution 2198 ( XXI ) (1951 - 1967)." And it provides the most comprehensive codification of the "rights of refugees" at the international level. Having said that, the Convention explicitely excludes the its application to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations (ex UNRWA) other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.​

(4) Humanitarian Law,

✪ The ICRC position on these matters is: "Refugees are protected by refugee law – mainly the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (1969) – and human rights law, and particularly by the principle of non-refoulement. They fall under the mandate of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees."
While the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 13(2), pertains to this discussion, when put to a vote, the UDHR was not established and put into force (never made it into law).​

(5) Law of State Responsibility,

✪ This means nothing if it does not specifically point to an international law for which an obligation is questioned.​

(6) Refugee Law,

✪ This is redundant with item (3). ​

(7) UN Law,

✪ There is no UN Law (ie UN does not create law). This (again) means nothing unless you cite a specific law.​

(8) Natural/Customary Law.

✪ Ah! Now, this is interesting, because customary law cancels-out the fences that limitation of UNHCR responsibility and the associated convention. And that changes who is considered a refugee and holds the "right of return."
If one looks-up the Customary IHL on the database, it show the applicable law. Please read it closely and remember, the Arab Palestinians have not been non-violent since 1948 and the solemn declaration:

Rule 132. Displaced persons have a right to voluntary return in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.​

The Customary Law (reasons for their displacement cease to exist), in the case of the Arab Palestinians:
Even before the adoption of A/RES/181 (II), the A/AC.13/PV.38 4 August 1947 clearly records the intention of the Arab Palestinians as expressed in the forum of the Arab Higher Committee:

4) The Jewish State which the Zionists are endeavouring to establish in Palestine is not moreover a viable State either from the political or from the economic point of view.

The Arab States could not, in fact, tolerate the creation of a State composed of foreign elements from so many parts, each with its own mentality, its insatiable desires, for the fulfilment of which they deliberately use violent and destructive means such as those we have mentioned.

Against a State established by violence the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence.​

This political position has been reaffirmed many times and still is exists as a 21st Century perspective in the use of violence:

(2012) Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.

​

While the presentation of Dr Qafisheh sounds impressive, it is not in any real respect.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[rylah]

Someone told me today that "insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result".

Who would that be?

 

[rylah]

FIFA suspends and fines Jibril Rajoub

 

[P F Tinmore]

The excerpt, supra, is from a submission by Dr Mutaz M. Qafisheh (Dean, College of Law and Political Science, Hebron University Palestinian Territory) and is often used as an authority for the claim of legitimacy on the issue of "Right of Return."

So?

This was published in the Cambridge International Law Journal. May we assume that this would be peer reviewed?

It would be interesting to see any rebuttals if any.

 

[P F Tinmore]

✪ The ICRC position on these matters is: "Refugees are protected by refugee law – mainly the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)

Resolution 194 was passed in 1948 and was in strict compliance with international law. That was passed specifically to address the Palestinian refugees.

 

[Hollie]

The excerpt, supra, is from a submission by Dr Mutaz M. Qafisheh (Dean, College of Law and Political Science, Hebron University Palestinian Territory) and is often used as an authority for the claim of legitimacy on the issue of "Right of Return."

So?

This was published in the Cambridge International Law Journal. May we assume that this would be peer reviewed?

It would be interesting to see any rebuttals if any.

Peer reviewed for what, exactly? You have cut and pasted similar opinions you found on the web. Oddly, the flood of foreign Arab-Moslem settler colonists never materialized.

 

[Shusha]

The excerpt, supra, is from a submission by Dr Mutaz M. Qafisheh (Dean, College of Law and Political Science, Hebron University Palestinian Territory) and is often used as an authority for the claim of legitimacy on the issue of "Right of Return."

So?

This was published in the Cambridge International Law Journal. May we assume that this would be peer reviewed?

It would be interesting to see any rebuttals if any.

Answer my post from earlier and you will see rebuttals.

 

[P F Tinmore]

✪ The use of the phrase "State Succession" means: the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relations of the territory."

The rule of nationality and state succession states that when a new state succeeds another, all of the people who normally lived in that territory would become citizens of the new state. This was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and was a tenet of Resolution 181.

This means that all Palestinian refugees became citizens of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

The so-called “Pal’istanians” are struggling?

Gaza’s Millionaires and Billionaires — How Hamas’s Leaders Got Rich Quick

 

[Hollie]

✪ The use of the phrase "State Succession" means: the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relations of the territory."

The rule of nationality and state succession states that when a new state succeeds another, all of the people who normally lived in that territory would become citizens of the new state. This was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and was a tenet of Resolution 181.

This means that all Palestinian refugees became citizens of Israel.

That’s the same nonsensical cut and paste you dump into multiple threads. It has been addressed repeatedly. Why spam multiple threads with the same cut and paste?

Here’s a hint: the Treaty of Lausanne did not create your invented “country of Pal’istan”.

 

[Shusha]

The rule of nationality and state succession states that when a new state succeeds another, all of the people who normally lived in that territory would become citizens of the new state. This was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and was a tenet of Resolution 181.

This means that all Palestinian refugees became citizens of Israel.

Oh wow, like the scribbler of the article we discussing, you like to play fast and loose with the rules, don't you? But let's follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

1. You are claiming here that there is ONE (only one) Successor State and that is Israel. (Phew, we agree). Since there is only one Successor State, the entire territory is Israel and upon Israel's Declaration of Independence, all residents in the territory became citizens of Israel.

2. All residents of Jordan, by rules of State succession, became nationals of Jordan (the other Successor State), and are no longer refugees and thus have no further rights of return.

3. Anyone who continues to reside in the territory, by definition, is not a refugee and has no further rights of return. They are already there.

4. Israel Nationality Law becomes the law of the land.

5. There is no occupation.


With me so far?

 

[Hollie]

✪ The ICRC position on these matters is: "Refugees are protected by refugee law – mainly the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)

Resolution 194 was passed in 1948 and was in strict compliance with international law. That was passed specifically to address the Palestinian refugees.

General Assembly resolutions are non-binding opinions.

Elaborate on your statement: “Resolution 194 was passed in 1948 and was in strict compliance with international law.”

Your opinions tend toward circuitous routes leading to confused and contradictory predefined conclusions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

✪ The use of the phrase "State Succession" means: the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relations of the territory."

The rule of nationality and state succession states that when a new state succeeds another, all of the people who normally lived in that territory would become citizens of the new state. This was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and was a tenet of Resolution 181.

This means that all Palestinian refugees became citizens of Israel.

That’s the same nonsensical cut and paste you dump into multiple threads. It has been addressed repeatedly. Why spam multiple threads with the same cut and paste?

Here’s a hint: the Treaty of Lausanne did not create your invented “country of Pal’istan”.

You are confused.

I never said it did.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I saw that. I'm not sure that this is a case of using a professional journal for the publication as a means of pre-publication peer review. My experience has been that the peer review is a process before a final manuscript is presented for publication. (Saves on unnecessary embarrassment.)

Dr Qafisheh received his PhD in or around a decade ago (2007). Since then, I've seen more than a dozen such articles (I'm sure there must be more) on a wide ranging set of matters from Palestinians politics, economics and (my personal favorite) The Ability of the Palestinian Legal System to Secure Adequate Standards of Living: Reform or Failed State Duty (Asian Journal of International Law).

The excerpt, supra, is from a submission by Dr Mutaz M. Qafisheh (Dean, College of Law and Political Science, Hebron University Palestinian Territory) and is often used as an authority for the claim of legitimacy on the issue of "Right of Return."

So?

This was published in the Cambridge International Law Journal. May we assume that this would be peer reviewed?

It would be interesting to see any rebuttals if any.

(COMMENT)

Professional academics often publish rather than practice. (Them that cannot do ...) But operaators in the real world often find these published articleuseful as a means of maintaining a true course in the realities and alternative view in the Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R