Palestine Today

[Shusha]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

​

Yes. I agree. I'm speaking of general principles rather than specific legal documents and statements. The principle of self-determination is fairly well accepted by the international community as a guiding principle. But it has not been entrenched in law for a number of reasons, the most difficult of which is the tension between it and the principle of territorial integrity (which IS entrenched in law in a number of documents, including the constitutions of most countries. See the issues with Quebec/Canada and Catalonia/Spain). Other problems include defining a "people"; determining their attachment to a territory; whether self-determination means some sort of limited self-government or must include sovereignty and Statehood.

So my previous answer was an attempt to clarify some of these difficulties, personally. Part of the reason why the conflict between Israel and some sort of self-determining Arab Palestine has gone on as long as it has is that it is a test case for resolving some of these complex, competing and changing principles.

As far as I am aware, there is no "right" to return to be found anywhere in specific law. The closest anything comes are laws concerning refugees, but that in no way guarantees a "right" to return. Return is merely offered as one of several solutions to re-settling refugees and, of course, we know, does not apply to descendants.

(No, Tinmore, don't post the Susan Akram video AGAIN. We know. And I disagree with her. If you want to argue some of her points do so. But posting the video AGAIN is a waste of everyone's time and should be considered spamming.)

 

[Shusha]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

 

[Shusha]

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Nope, nope. Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific STATE, which holds sovereignty over a territory, making them citizens of that STATE.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, that clarifies it. But I dont agree, because I don't agree that there is any collective right of return beyond what a state is willing to give.

Well, yes, I agree. States are the actors on the world stage. They are the ones who can "do" things.

But I would find it morally problematic, if, for example, a State of Palestine refused to permit Arab Palestinians, say those living in refugee camps in Lebanon, to return to Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Therefore what is left is to discuss the real concepts, and cultural archetypes that influence the development on the ground and stay in contradiction to (what seems to me) most of the modern Western concepts according to which various solutions are measured.

Specifically the concept under Jewish Law - of specific land forever belonging to a specific nation only , regardless of who might have invaded it and inhabits in any given time. This in a way resembles the modern western understanding of the status of indigenous cultures in their lands of origin, however with rare exception, remains only as intellectual concept.

And the dual Arab Muslim concept - of 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb', meaning land already governed under Muslim rule, vs land not yet dominated that is under a non-Muslim rule. However with that also comes a clause which allows specifically only Arab rule in the Arabian peninsula.

Therefore the question should be rather - can these 3 systems of law practically come to terms,
and in what way?

This is a very good point and good subject for discussion. I think one of the issues in the UN right now is that the preeminence of "Western thinking" is sliding away, with the balance of power coming into an entirely different cultural point of reference and set of values.

I'm going to think on this. Thanks, rylah.

 

[Ropey]

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that oppresses the Palestinian people in Gaza through intimidation and outright violence, while inciting violence against Israel.”

 

[Ropey]

#1876 = The days of the youth 'Avera Mengistu' in Hamas's captivity.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Nobody is dancing around the issue. You are attempting to use this "people belong to the land" as some sort of authority to the Arab Palestinian superior claim to the sovereign territory and "Right of Return."

IF anyone → it is YOU that is dancing around the issue.

You could lay the entire issue to rest by submitting the specific citation in Law, Binding Resolution by enforcement date, Convention, Treaty, etc, that gives the "Right of Return" as a universal obligation that requires a controlling nation to surrender territory.

Citing documents my ass.

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

(COMMENT)

You have NOT done it. Why, because it does NOT exist. Whereas, I provided you the binding citation
Adopted and opened for accession in General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; well before the creation of the PLO by Palestine National Charter of 1968. And Israel established effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967, well before the League of Arab States established the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people "in any Palestinian territory that is liberated" (1974).

◈ What Palestinian territory has been liberated?​

The Palestinians have not liberated any territory; even by their own standards.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Nobody is dancing around the issue. You are attempting to use this "people belong to the land" as some sort of authority to the Arab Palestinian superior claim to the sovereign territory and "Right of Return."

IF anyone → it is YOU that is dancing around the issue.

You could lay the entire issue to rest by submitting the specific citation in Law, Binding Resolution by enforcement date, Convention, Treaty, etc, that gives the "Right of Return" as a universal obligation that requires a controlling nation to surrender territory.

Citing documents my ass.

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

(COMMENT)

You have NOT done it. Why, because it does NOT exist. Whereas, I provided you the binding citation
Adopted and opened for accession in General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; well before the creation of the PLO by Palestine National Charter of 1968. And Israel established effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967, well before the League of Arab States established the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people "in any Palestinian territory that is liberated" (1974).

◈ What Palestinian territory has been liberated?​

The Palestinians have not liberated any territory; even by their own standards.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

And Israel established effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967,

Effective control is a term used to define an occupation.

https://www.un.org/en/development/d...docs/globalcompact/A_RES_2200A(XXI)_civil.pdf

This supports the Palestinians more than Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rashida Tlaib Officially Endorses Bernie Sanders

Rashida Tlaib for VP?

 

[Shusha]

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

Well, I don't know where it is, exactly, that you have posted all these documents because I haven't seen them. I certainly haven't seen the primary source material. Please clarify.

However, do NOT post anything which supports:

• that borders, when not specified in peace treaties, generally follow the previous territorial borders
• that the borders haven't changed since after the end of the 1948 war
• that citizens generally adopt or follow the change in sovereignty
• that Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination

Why? Because I AGREE with you already on all of these points.


Also, do not bother to post:

• anything about UNGA 194 as the source of a right of return in perpetuity

Why? Because its not sufficient, imo, for such a MAJOR change in customary law.

 

[rylah]

PA BANS LGBTQ ACTIVITIES IN WEST BANK
The ban came after LGBTQ group Al-Qaws was planing to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus.

The Palestinian Authority banned members of the Palestinian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community from carrying out any activities in the West Bank.

The ban came after the grassroots group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society (Arabic for “the bow”), which engages and supports Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ, was planning to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus at the end of the month. The group operates both in the West Bank and among Arab-Israelis.

Earlier this month, Al-Qaws held an event in Nablus about sexual and gender diversity in Palestinian society. The PA police, however, learned about the event only days after it was held.

Al-Qaws is a civil society organization established in 2001 with the goal of “fighting for vibrant Palestinian cultural and social change, building LGBTQ communities and promoting new ideas about the role of gender and sexual diversity in political activism, civil society institutions, media, and everyday life.”

The group has offices only in east Jerusalem and Haifa.

Explaining the decision to ban the LGBTQ group from operating in PA-controlled areas, Luay Zreikat, spokesperson for the PA Police, said that such activities are “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society.”

Zreikat said that the group’s activities were completely “unrelated to religions and Palestinian traditions and customs, especially in the city of Nablus.”

He accused unnamed “dubious parties” of working to “create discord and harm civic peace in Palestinian society.”

The PA police will chase those behind the LGBTQ group and see to it that they are brought to trial once they are arrested, Zreikat warned. He further appealed to Palestinians to report to the police about any person connected to the group.

Full article: PA bans LGBTQ activities in West Bank

 

[Coyote]

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

I both agree and disagree with this.

On the disagree side, I worry that this opens the door to abuse. In that it creates the condition of making expulsion a viable method of removing rights from people. We should guard against that.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

It makes sense but it still seems problematic...maybe you could elaborate.

Are "collective rights to self determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.

Self-determination has to MEAN something, right? It is intended for a peoples of a specific culture, originating on that territory, to create a space where that particular culture colors the landscape. Its values, its language, its holiday celebrations, its particular rhythm of life, its ideology is the ice cream flavor of the day, every day. Right? Otherwise the entire idea of self-determination has no value.

(This doesn't mean that other cultures are unable to practice and live their culture. And their culture should be protected, but that its just not the color of the sky, you know?)

So, given that the goal is two states (likely actually four) -- each with their own color -- the collective right of return involves returning to the state which offers your color. It gives people the collective right to live under their own sky.

Individuals who would rather return to their own specific home, would have individual rights to do so. But their descendants would not.

Clear?

Yes, that clarifies it. But I dont agree, because I don't agree that there is any collective right of return beyond what a state is willing to give.

Sure. You are thinking of return as something which can happen only after self-determination and sovereignty has been achieved.

While I’m suggesting for a people with a large Diaspora it can be part of the process of achieving self-determination.

No...I don't think so. I see it as entirely seperate things. For example Spain granting Jews the right to return is entirly independent of self determination.

 

[Ropey]

For what comes? We will say Kaddish for the Hamas terrorists killed in Gaza.

If the Arabs states really want peace with Israel:

Disarm Hezbollah
Ditto Hamas
Stop teaching in schools that Jews = vermin
Stop paying terrorists who kill Jews
Stop inciting / funding hate
Recognize Jewish history
Recognize Jews as people
Return our dead that you took while alive.

More?

 

[Coyote]

Yes, that clarifies it. But I dont agree, because I don't agree that there is any collective right of return beyond what a state is willing to give.

Well, yes, I agree. States are the actors on the world stage. They are the ones who can "do" things.

But I would find it morally problematic, if, for example, a State of Palestine refused to permit Arab Palestinians, say those living in refugee camps in Lebanon, to return to Palestine.

Agree. It is a moral issue, like many of these issue but not a right.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Points to start out with:

◈ While the term "effective control" has been used by many, to describe the extent of control, it is only used to separate it from the notions like that of "partial control" or "total control." T he words "effective - partial - total" merely modify the notion of control. It is not an International Legal Phrase in and by itself.

◈ The notion of "effective control" is NOT used in the official version of the • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •. Nor will you find the word "occupation" anywhere in the CCPR. The CCPR speeks of "effective remedy" • "effective protection" • and "effective performance • BUT NOT "effective control." Your citation is faulty.​

The phase "effective control" is NOT unique to the discussion of "occupation."

◈ effective control. Definition. noun. a situation where someone owns a large number of shares in a company, but less than 50 per cent, and so in effect controls the company because no other single shareholder can outvote him or her.​

Effective control is a term used to define an occupation.

https://www.un.org/en/development/d...docs/globalcompact/A_RES_2200A(XXI)_civil.pdf

This supports the Palestinians more than Israel.

(COMMENT)

In your defense, I will point out the notion of "effective control" is used by the "ICRC Expert Meeting" on the Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory;" as are the notions of "effective foreign control over territory," and the concept of "indirect effective control." But again, these are not actually independent legal terms. They are phrases of description and adjectives which modify the word "control."

Now independently the notion of "effectiveness" can be found in the on Page 70 of the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. And you will notice its use in the application to the condition of "Occupation."

A - State in international law only exists if its governmental power is an effective one, i.e. if it is able to enforce its decisions inside the governed territory (- Territorial Sovereignty); only the effective occupation of a territory creates rights of the occupying State, i.e. the State must factually be able to govern the territory concerned
(- Occupation, Belligerent).

I have asked you many times what control (or what sovereignty) do the Arab Palestinians maintain over what territory?

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

Well, I don't know where it is, exactly, that you have posted all these documents because I haven't seen them. I certainly haven't seen the primary source material. Please clarify.

However, do NOT post anything which supports:

• that borders, when not specified in peace treaties, generally follow the previous territorial borders
• that the borders haven't changed since after the end of the 1948 war
• that citizens generally adopt or follow the change in sovereignty
• that Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination

Why? Because I AGREE with you already on all of these points.


Also, do not bother to post:

• anything about UNGA 194 as the source of a right of return in perpetuity

Why? Because its not sufficient, imo, for such a MAJOR change in customary law.

I'm glad we agree on some issues.

BTW, resolution 194 was written with strict adherence to international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Points to start out with:

◈ While the term "effective control" has been used by many, to describe the extent of control, it is only used to separate it from the notions like that of "partial control" or "total control." T he words "effective - partial - total" merely modify the notion of control. It is not an International Legal Phrase in and by itself.

◈ The notion of "effective control" is NOT used in the official version of the • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •. Nor will you find the word "occupation" anywhere in the CCPR. The CCPR speeks of "effective remedy" • "effective protection" • and "effective performance • BUT NOT "effective control." Your citation is faulty.​

The phase "effective control" is NOT unique to the discussion of "occupation."

◈ effective control. Definition. noun. a situation where someone owns a large number of shares in a company, but less than 50 per cent, and so in effect controls the company because no other single shareholder can outvote him or her.​

Effective control is a term used to define an occupation.

https://www.un.org/en/development/d...docs/globalcompact/A_RES_2200A(XXI)_civil.pdf

This supports the Palestinians more than Israel.

(COMMENT)

In your defense, I will point out the notion of "effective control" is used by the "ICRC Expert Meeting" on the Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory;" as are the notions of "effective foreign control over territory," and the concept of "indirect effective control." But again, these are not actually independent legal terms. They are phrases of description and adjectives which modify the word "control."

Now independently the notion of "effectiveness" can be found in the on Page 70 of the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. And you will notice its use in the application to the condition of "Occupation."

A - State in international law only exists if its governmental power is an effective one, i.e. if it is able to enforce its decisions inside the governed territory (- Territorial Sovereignty); only the effective occupation of a territory creates rights of the occupying State, i.e. the State must factually be able to govern the territory concerned
(- Occupation, Belligerent).

View attachment 286914​

I have asked you many times what control (or what sovereignty) do the Arab Palestinians maintain over what territory?

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

When defining the rights of a people the control of territory is never mentioned.

 

[Shusha]

You touched on some basic principles.

I have posted two items that specifically state that the people belong to the land. I have posted three documents that concur with this principle. I have posted documents that say that Palestinian land/borders still existed after the end of the 1948 war. I have posted UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to return.

Yet people post pages of clutter trying to dance around the issues.

Well, I don't know where it is, exactly, that you have posted all these documents because I haven't seen them. I certainly haven't seen the primary source material. Please clarify.

However, do NOT post anything which supports:

• that borders, when not specified in peace treaties, generally follow the previous territorial borders
• that the borders haven't changed since after the end of the 1948 war
• that citizens generally adopt or follow the change in sovereignty
• that Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination

Why? Because I AGREE with you already on all of these points.


Also, do not bother to post:

• anything about UNGA 194 as the source of a right of return in perpetuity

Why? Because its not sufficient, imo, for such a MAJOR change in customary law.

I'm glad we agree on some issues.

BTW, resolution 194 was written with strict adherence to international law.

194, though, has been stretched to breaking by the Arabs who insist it means more than it meant in customary international law at the time.