Nakba Day 2012: Refugees waiting, 64 years and counting

by on May 15, 2012 17
22sharesFacebook
30tweetsTwitter
1stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Sam Bahour, a Palestinian-American based in Al-Bireh/Ramallah, speaking at TEDxRamallah in April 2011. Bahour blogs on Palestinian affairs and is co-editor of HOMELAND: Oral History of Palestine and Palestinians.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Nakba, Reports/Video

{ 17 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. OlegR says:
    May 15, 2012 at 9:54 am

    This is futile.
    As long as ROR is on the table there will be no peace.
    Every Palestinian knows that.
    ROR is a clear attempt to reverse the results of 1948
    Some would love to see it happen but i am sorry to inform you that it will not.
    Trying to do so will only
    lead to more violence and more losses,
    mainly to the Palestinians.

    • Woody Tanaka says:
      May 15, 2012 at 10:28 am

      Bull. The Right of Return of the Palestinians people to thier stolen land of Palestine is not the impediment. The israelis could have accepted the Arab Peace Plan a decade ago, which resolved the issue, but it would cost the israelis money in compensation and it would require them to treat Arabs as humans and to quiet their bloodlust. When the israelis get serious out peace, it will have peace. But it prefers to commit atrocities for sport.

      • Fredblogs says:
        May 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        Except that as OlegR says, the ROR got in the way. The Arab “Peace” plan includes ROR.

        • Woody Tanaka says:
          May 15, 2012 at 4:32 pm

          “The Arab “Peace” plan includes ROR.”

          No, the Arab Peace Plan provides for a resolution of the Palestinian’s Right of Return, in a manner agreeable to both sides. In other words, the Arabs know that the israeli government will not respect the rights of the Palestinians to return, given the isreali’s bigotry, so the plan permits them to provide proper compensation. But even that is too much, because the israelis really want war, not peace.

          (And why “ROR”? Why not “Right of Return.” It’s too difficult to spell. It’s not too long. [Certainly shorter than "the Jewish State of Israel" which you zios insist on.] Or do you feel you’ll get polluted if you actually recognize the rights of the Palestinians?)

    • eljay says:
      May 15, 2012 at 10:43 am

      >> ROR is a clear attempt to reverse the results of 1948

      Palestinians with decades or centuries of tangible ties to the land from which they – or their parents or grandparents – were expelled by terrorists and supremacists less than 70 years ago are denied their legal right to return to that land.

      Meanwhile, foreign citizens of a particular faith – who never lived in that land; whose parents or grandparents never lived in that land; whose ancestors had not lived in that land for generations or even centuries, if at all – are permitted and encouraged to “return” to a place to which they have no tangible ties. (Biblical yearnings and the Holocaust do not represent tangible ties.)

      The hatefulness and immorality of Zio-supremacists – and the pride they seem to take in being hateful and immoral – never ceases to amaze me.

    • Talkback says:
      May 15, 2012 at 11:58 am

      “As long as ROR is on the table there will be no peace.”

      Translation: Colonialists consider the maintainance of expulsion of the natives to be peaceful.

      “ROR is a clear attempt to reverse the results of 1948″

      True. Return is the reverse of flight and expulsion.

      “Some would love to see it happen but i am sorry to inform you that it will not.”

      What about Hertzl’s dream?

      “Trying to do so will only lead to more violence and more losses,
      mainly to the Palestinians.”

      Translation: Colonialists will massacre more natives if they try to return to their homeland.

  2. pabelmont says:
    May 15, 2012 at 10:18 am

    ROR (in UNGA 194) is expressed as a choice: peace loving (and I suppose peace promising) exiles shall be allowed either return to their lands and property (houses) or be paid a compensation. Since many houses/villages were destroyed, one supposes that they would prefer compensation — were it FAIR (say, today’s prices, not 1948 prices in today’s currency). BUT SOME PEOPLE (surely) did not own land and would have no compensation.

    Israel is an all-powerful, proud, dominant, and triumphant country. As long as it remains that way, it will not be expected to provide any rights to the exiles, as OlegR says. Therefore, a primary purpose of BDS and all other pro-Palestine action must be to create such enormous pressure — not all at once, but gradually — as to provide to every Israeli person the sure and certain knowledge that (until they behave themselves properly by BDS standards) Israel will slowly lose its power and dominance: it will have a choice between continued punishment and correct behavior. For that reason, to teach that lesson, I believe that the goal of BDS must not be merely removal of all settlers, but dismantling of the settlement buildings (and removal of the rubble) as well as dismantling of the wall. The nations — when they finally get behind BDS — must insist on this dismantling of the settlements, because it is the punishment (or threat or demand of punishment) that alone will change Israeli minds.

    • Woody Tanaka says:
      May 15, 2012 at 10:36 am

      “BUT SOME PEOPLE (surely) did not own land and would have no compensation.”

      I don’t see how justice can be done while only compensating for property loss. The loss of an ability to return, regardless of whether one owned property, is also a loss requiring compensation.

    • Fredblogs says:
      May 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm

      Wrong, pabelmont. It doesn’t say “shall be allowed to return” it says “should be allowed to return”.

      • Woody Tanaka says:
        May 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm

        “It doesn’t say ‘shall be allowed to return’ it says ‘should be allowed to return’.”

        Fredo, exactly what distinction do you think exists between these words? The use of “should” is proper for this document (and does not mean “if the zios feel like it.”)

        • Fredblogs says:
          May 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm

          Again with “words don’t mean anything”. The reason there are two words is that they mean different things. In laws and contracts “shall” is mandatory, “should” is optional.

        • Woody Tanaka says:
          May 16, 2012 at 4:25 pm

          “Again with ‘words don’t mean anything’.”

          Who’s saying “words don’t mean anything”? I’m saying, “these words don’t mean what you think they mean.” (Kind of like the bs you people pull when discussing Security Council Resolution 242, and you argue that the absence of the definite article meant that Israel was only required to withdraw from some territory, when the equally authoritative French is crystal clear that all of the territory had to be evacuated.)

          “In laws and contracts ‘shall’ is mandatory, ‘should’ is optional.”

          False. “May” is optional. “Should” is advisory. Which, again, considering the fact that this is a General Assembly resolution, is the appropriate word, and does not mean “optional” or “the bloody zios can do whatever they want to their victims.” It means, in this context, “international law requires… so we expect you will do so.”

        • Fredblogs says:
          May 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm

          For you guys, who think separate and distinct words with different meanings mean the same thing, words may as well not mean anything. If you want it spelled out, you think differences in words don’t mean anything.

          If international law required, why wouldn’t they say “must”, or “shall”, not “should”. Nice of you to admit that “should” is advisory, since like any advice, the advisee is free to take the advice or ignore it.

          BTW, it doesn’t say “Palestinian refugees” it just says “refugees”. So when are all the Jewish refugees going to be welcomed back into all the Arab countries that kicked them out, along with their descendants and the compensation of the ones who choose not to return?

        • Woody Tanaka says:
          May 17, 2012 at 10:04 am

          “For you guys, who think separate and distinct words with different meanings mean the same thing, words may as well not mean anything. If you want it spelled out, you think differences in words don’t mean anything.”

          In other words, you admit you’re full of shit. Got it, Fredo.

          “If international law required, why wouldn’t they say ‘must’, or ‘shall’, not ‘should’.”

          Because it’s a UN General Assembly Resolution. If you don’t understand the significance of that, in the context we’re talking about without me spelling it out, then you do not have even the elementary-school-level background knowledge to form a valid opinion on the subject and should just shut your pie hole.

          “Nice of you to admit that ‘should’ is advisory, since like any advice, the advisee is free to take the advice or ignore it.”

          Yes, the GA resolution is advisory; the International Law it is referencing is not.

          If the IRS advises you that you “should” pay your taxes (because the law requires it) and you choose to ignore that advice, you are not somehow mystically immune from the law because the statement was advisory. Same here. The GA did not establish the international law it was referencing, it advised as to what international law already was.

          “So when are all the Jewish refugees going to be welcomed back into all the Arab countries that kicked them out, along with their descendants and the compensation of the ones who choose not to return?”

          I am on record as saying that any Jew who was forced out of any Arab country (this would exclude those who simply wanted to join the Zionist project, of course) and who wish to live in peace with their neighbors should have the absolute right to do so or to chose compensation. Do you agree that the Palestinian refugees have the same right? Or is your concern pretext and hypocracy because you really don’t give a damn about those Jews, except to the extent that it bolsters your anti-Arab bigotry?

        • Fredblogs says:
          May 18, 2012 at 6:25 pm

          When those Jews get their compensation, then the Palestinians should get their compensation.

          Oh, and I don’t have any anti-Arab bigotry. I judge their people based on their individual actions and their countries based on their individual actions.

    • Fredblogs says:
      May 15, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Also, there isn’t enough economic pressure in the world to get Israel to capitulate on the ROR. That would be the end of Israel and lead to another Holocaust. You think a few, or even 90% of the world BDSing them would be enough to overcome their aversion to that?

    • Mayhem says:
      May 17, 2012 at 10:27 pm

      Claiming UN Resolution 194 substantiates that Palestinian refugees have a ROR or shall be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel was not even mentioned in the resolution.
      The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem.
      When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab countries, Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation.
      To sum up, ROR is LOL.