What a fantastic idea!
A huge key that weighs approximately a ton and symbolizes the right of return for Palestinian refugees was transported from the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem to the Berlin Biennale in Germany.
The key, which is nine meters long and has inscriptions in several languages, started its journey in March when it was dismounted from its place on top of the camp gate.
The steel key was made by Palestinian refugees at the Aida Social Youth Center in Bethlehem. For center manager Monther Amayra, displaying the key in Berlin gives Palestinians a chance to communicate their aspirations to the world.
“This is an excellent opportunity for us as refugees and as the makers of the Right of Return Key,” he said.
“It is a major event expected to receive more than two million visitors who will be acquainted with the demands of the Palestinian people, on top of which is the right of return.”
The key is presented as "a symbol of peaceful resistance" while teaching Palestinian history. It has already been invited to tour other cities. Please bring the key to America!
(Hat tip Karen Platt)
A whole host of international treaties & conventions recognize the Palestinians right to return including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination & the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights. The Right of Return for refugees is GUARANTEED under Humanitarian & Human Rights Law & countless UN resolutions. UN has affirmed the right of return through its Resolution 194 on no less than 122 occasions.
The “whole host” really don’t actually. A few general assembly resolutions do, but they aren’t binding.
A few of them can be twisted to appear to say that, but they actually don’t.
For example, this one has a bit about freedom of movement, it is not about refugees. “Return to his country”. It doesn’t have anything to define when something is “his country”. It also doesn’t say anything about descendants of refugees, for that matter it doesn’t mention refugees at all. It means that a citizen can’t be prevented from re-entering a country. And even that is not obeyed by every country.
link to un.org
They might not be binding but they are general guidelines agreed upon by world powers that civilized modern nations are expected to honor, not treat them like a dirty lawyer would arguing over the fine print of a business contract. These are human lives. Why does Israel treat everything from the perspective of a lawyer? Like that article last week or so where somebody made it sound like if a deal is rejected by the Palestinians, the next deal will be worse. This isn’t a corporation, although many corporations profit off of the occupation so I would imagine this is reflected in their politics.
If I convert to Judaism and get a Certificate of Conversion, the Jewish law of return says that despite having no family or friends and not speaking a word of Hebrew, I can ‘return’ to my ‘adopted homeland’ and be a citizen. Yet people who were born there, had generations of ancestors living there, still have the deed and key to their long-demolished home after they were forcibly expelled by Israeli brutes, are not allowed to come back? Despite the UN resolutions that Israel ignores because they’re corporate psychopaths? What planet does this make sense on? I mean, if that makes sense to everybody, I guess I’m not from this planet.
The right of return is not going to be easy because of the amount of time that has passed, but it just cannot be ignored. It will never go away. Those who bury their head in the sand and think “those Arab countries they live in should give them citizenship” are going to regret it in the end.
Charon
“Why does Israel treat everything from the perspective of a lawyer? “
Simple… as long as something is being disputed in law, it cannot be finalized.
Fred…
It doesn’t have anything to define when something is “his country”
OK let’s take your word for it. Now apply it to Jews formerly from Arab States. Or apply it to Israelis were they ever to be dispossessed from Israel.
BTW what you say is irrelevant
“A few general assembly resolutions do, but they aren’t binding. “
More than a few UNGA resolutions reiterate Chapters from the UN Charter (binding in its entirety on ALL UN Members without exception) or emphasize International Law (binding on all states) / Customary International Law (binding on all states) / UNSC resolutions (binding on the parties) / relevant ratified Conventions (binding on all signatories) / Armistice Agreements (binding on all parties) / Peace Agreements (binding on all parties). They’re all reminders of what IS binding.
BTW before you start the usual idiotic Hasbara UNRWA spiel, UNGA res 194 was written before UNRWA came onto the scene. The legal definition per UNGA res 194
fredblogs: The United Nation’s Partition Plan was a non-binding proposal that was never ratified or adopted by the Security Council, and therefore never acquired legal standing, as UN regulations require – although as far as the Palestinian people are concerned the United Nations had NO RIGHT at any rate to partition what WAS NOT theirs to partition, much less to do so without the consultation of the Palestinian people themselves, thus denying them the right to self-determination.
Also, Israel is the only state to be given a CONDITIONAL admission to the UN. Under General Assembly Resolution 273, Israel was admitted on the condition that it grant ALL Palestinians the right to return to their homes & receive compensation for lost or damaged property, according to General As sembly Resolution 194, paragraph 11. Suffice to say, Israel has never lived up to these terms, never intended to – only deceitfully agreed to get their foot in the door, so should, in effect, be expelled.
Blake.
“The United Nation’s Partition Plan was a non-binding proposal that was never ratified or adopted by the Security Council”
It didn’t require ratification or adoption by the UNSC. The UNSC can only; demand of UN Member states or; advise UN Member states of how they may or may not behave towards non-members. The Jewish Agency and Palestinian representative were not UN Members.
An entity can’t be forced into declaring independence. The decision to and the act of declaring independence is by its very nature unilateral, ‘independent’. Completely free of all control by any other entity. UNGA res 181 could not be binding.
There was no article demanding a co-signature from the other party, nor could there be for either State to declare independence. The ‘independence’ of one could not be ‘dependent’ on the nay or yeh of either.
The resolutions “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan , have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. “
The Jewish Agency accepted UNGA res 181 without reservation in 1947. Six months after the Arab States rejected it, Israel was declared independent by a declaration enshrining UNGA res 181. It’s still there and;
Israel could ONLY be accepted into the UN if it was independent as envisaged in this plan (UNGA res 181)
Israel acknowledged the same on the 22nd May 1948
For Israel to say UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, is blatant nonsense.
By immediately recognizing Israel according to the borders UNGA res 181 recommended the US is now obliged to allow the passage of Chapt VI resolutions dealing with the legal extent of Israeli territory/borders. In support of Israel, it can only abstain.
The only thing preventing the full effect of the law for Israel’s breeches of the Law and UN Charter described in VI resolutions, is the US veto vote on Chapt VII resolutions in the UNSC.
Little wonder Israel and the supporters of greater Israel dedicate so much to influencing US politics. All Israel’s eggs are in one basket.
@Blake
In the partition area set aside for Israel, Jews were in a majority before the partition. Self-determination for that area would put have put the Jews in charge. That’s why the Arabs rejected the partition. When to break up what had been one country (or one part of an empire) into two countries has almost always been decided by force. Whether it was the American Colonies breaking off from England, or the Southern States trying to break off from America, or Northern Cyprus being taken from Cyprus by the Turks. Also, I’ve read the GA resolution admitting Israel. There is nothing conditional about it. It mentions allowing the Palestinians to return as a good idea, but absolutely nothing in it says that Israel is only allowed into the UN if the Palestinians are allowed to return. Why else do you think that a UN now full of Israel haters and their lackeys hasn’t removed Israel from the UN?
The UN cannot create any states. It can only recommend a solution and if both sides of a conflict can come to an agreement only then can it go to the Security Council to be ratified into law.
Security Council resolutions aren’t law. The U.N. is not the legislature of some world government.
“In the partition area set aside for Israel, Jews were in a majority before the partition.”
They were not. Besides the fact that 2/3 weren’t even citizens of Palestine (and therefore had no political rights or claims in Palestine) the Nonjews were a slight majority. And neither the Arab nor the Jewish Citizens were asked what they wanted. The GOI just claim to represent them and even world Jewry.
Even though it’s another of fredblogs irrational arguments it’s another falsehood. 30000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed out January 1947 – May 1948. Over 300000 Palestinians were forced to leave West Jerusalem, Tiberias, Haifa, Jafa, Beishan, Deir Yasin Mar – in May 1948 – terrified by horrible massacre committed by Hagana & Stern forces against innocent civilians in Deir Yasin.
The Israeli armed forces deported approximately 100000 Palestinians from Lod & Ramlah cities to Jordan May- Dec 1948. Israeli hostilities continued after the 1948 war, over 200000 Palestinians were forced to move to the Gaza Strip.
@ fredblogs: Why is it incredible to want to negotiate the terms of your independence ? It sounds normal.
Have you read Resolution 194, paragraph 11? Also, General Assembly Resolution 3236 which “reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return”.
CALLING FOR A RETURN is not just a “good idea” even if English is your second language.
Fredblogs
“In the partition area set aside for Israel, Jews were in a majority before the partition. Self-determination for that area would put have put the Jews in charge. That’s why the Arabs rejected the partition.”
Nice try … but nonsense… Arab rejection was based on the lack of self determination and consultation of the legitimate citizens of Palestine to have any of Palestine partitioned. (sans TransJordan, independent 1946, UNGA res 181 was 1947). Especially as the Lon Mandate for Palestine tasked the British with forming a state called Palestine, in which Jews could under Article 7, obtain Palestinian citizenship.
“I’ve read the GA resolution admitting Israel. There is nothing conditional about it”
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 //
Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations,”
Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions//
UNGA Res 194 //5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council’s resolution of 16 November 1948 1/ and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them//
UNGA res 181 //F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS – When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.//
“It mentions allowing the Palestinians to return as a good idea:
No it doesn’t. It was about Israel being accepted into the UN.
“but absolutely nothing in it says that Israel is only allowed into the UN if the Palestinians are allowed to return”
Israel had already agreed to implement UNGA res 194, before 11 December 1948
“Why else do you think that a UN now full of Israel haters”
Israel is in breech of its obligations. The UN has a duty to censure all UN Member states in breech of their UN Obligations.
“… and their lackeys hasn’t removed Israel from the UN?”
The US veto vote in the UNSC would prevents any action being taken against Israel.
Fredblogs
“Security Council resolutions aren’t law.”
UNSC Resolutions are based on the law and the UN Charter
“The U.N. is not the legislature of some world government”
The UN has a Charter to which all UN Members are obliged in its entirety, no exceptions. The Charter is the law of the UN, governing all UN Member States.
GA=non-binding. As for 194 para 11: three problems beyond that. First, “should be”, not “must be”. I should be flossing more often, but it isn’t a law. Second only refugees “willing to live in peace with their neighbors” should be allowed back in. No indication that the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel. Third, nothing about descendants of refugees. As for 3236, again non-binding, and the people who voted on it knew that.
Also, I notice you haven’t responded to the part about Israel’s admission not being conditional. So cite me something that says Israel can only be in the U.N. if they let the Palestinians back in.
The states are obliged to follow their own interpretation of the charter. The Security Council is toothless and has no real power, that’s why almost all of their resolutions are in the form of suggestions, so when their resolutions are ignored they don’t look like they are being disobeyed. The only time their resolutions actually matter is when they are used as an excuse by a major power to do what it was already planning to do with or without Security Council go ahead.
Ideal for Sculpture by the Sea http://www.sculpturebythesea.com
Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians, the large majority of whom were born in their hosting countries who have also made a point of insuring they live a miserable existence with few rights and many restrictions, is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. Now that is just not right, and you know it.
“Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. Now that is just not right, and you know it.”
I don’t know it at all! Why is it not right for a Jewish country to cease to exist? It seems to me that it would be a good thing for it to be replaced by a state which gave equal rights to all its citizens.
Did the founders of zionism think of that before they went on their ethnic cleaning land grab giladg? Seems to me what you advocate is far worse than what the Allies have invaded for. Moral of the story: Should think before you do stupid terrorist land grabs (and before you talk or comment).
Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians…. is saying that Israel…, will no longer exist.
actually, that would merely be your interpretation. if you are interested in what people are saying you need to listen to them and not filter everything thru the voice of their adversaries.
Where were the majority of “Israelis” born in 1948? Hypocrite.
>> Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians … is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. Now that is just not right, and you know it.
I support a limited RoR for Palestinians (w/ compensation in lieu). Regardless, I don’t believe that Israel should exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”. I believe it should exist as a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state, of and for all Israelis equally.
“I support a limited RoR for Palestinians (w/ compensation in lieu).”
but its not your right to decide, you either support universal human rights or you dont, these are not your rights to cede.
>> but [it's] not your right to decide …
I never said it was.
fair enough however these rights are inalienable and its not for anyone to decide other than the those who bear these rights, or to enter into some weird “negotiations” on behalf of Palestinians, whats wrong with everyone going home, because it will inconvenience the colonists? so what.
the fact is the people of region reject the notion that outsiders, ie the west who have been responsible for awesome slaughter and destruction in this region over the last three centuries (see Dr. Gideon Polya for the astonishing figures) are going to suggest that the lowly denizens of the levant can access a limited set of “rights” that accommodate a brutal settler colonialist enterprise, we utterly reject this, all rights must be respected in full, its the only way forward.
What rights are you Americans willing to cede for world peace and humanities survival, how many of your inalienable rights will you give up, say 55% of the continental USA, why is it that our humanity can be attenuated but not yours, we are not lesser beings. It is incumbent on all people, all of whom have international responsibilities, to support the full application of international law and all relevant treaties. We do not accept that our region can be subjected to settler colonization, why should we? i dont mean to be rude, and very much appreciate your interest, courage and forthright rejection of this global Jim Crow, its just so upsetting, perhaps i should wait for those Mooser comments to lighten my mood.
You in the states cant even help yourselves you can do nothing for us, while your state is looted and your compatriots tremble in a febrile stupor about exploding underwear and triumphant Minarets, we respect the fact that the right in the USA is brave, brutal and murderous the “left” seems incapable of anything more than pious platitudes, a political maxim that seems to work very well for non-euro/americans is never trust a white man, its worked quite well for me but then i am half white, if such is indeed possible, i remember the shactmanites and the duplicity of ICG in the seventies, in terms of anti-colonialism, which many young white guys felt was objectively progressive, its all so depressing, you could learn a lot from the Palestinians, Hammas and Hizbollah, at the very least how to actually resist, i await a real American revolution, what do you think are the chances? anymore than 0%.
all the best etc.
Right now the “people of the region” are the Israelis, since most of them were born there, while most of the descendants of the Palestinian refugees were not. So what is the statute of limitations on coming back to land your ancestors were kicked out of? If there isn’t one, the Jews have it, since they came back and kicked out those with more recent history than the ancestors of the Jews. How many generations of Palestinians are native born Jordanians before they no longer have a claim on Israel?
giladg says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:11 am
Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians, the large majority of whom were born in their hosting countries who have also made a point of insuring they live a miserable existence with few rights and many restrictions, is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. Now that is just not right, and you know it.”
Can’t believe you are using the words “not right”. What was right about giving the zionist half of Palestine, someone elses land, to begin with? It was wrong, not right. Right of return and reparations for Palestine is what Israel has to do to make itself even half way right.
giladg
“Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians…”
… is supporting a right all people have.
“…the large majority of whom were born in their hosting countries”
Irrelevant, they’re not permanent citizens of of Jordan or citizens of their hosting countries.
“…who have also made a point of insuring they live a miserable existence with few rights and many restrictions”
Odd. The Arab States have fought wars on behalf of the Palestinians. For almost a century the Arab States have borne the cost of legally representing them through the legal minefield. For 64 years, the Arab States have hosted the Palestinians at a huge cost. They have adapted their legislations to accommodate the Palestinian desire to retain their RoR by not offering full citizenship rights and; on Black Sunday, the Jordanian Government had a duty to protect the majority of its permanent citizens, even from an armed uprising by militant refugees.
Jewish refugees from the Arab states are: A) no longer refugees if they have taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return and; B) irrelevant to the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians didn’t drive them out of the Arab States nor did they vote for the regimes in the Arab States.
Of course you’d love them to be absorbed by their host nations, then they wouldn’t be in the way of the Ghastly Greater Israel project.
“..is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. Now that is just not right, and you know it”
Yes, we know it isn’t right. In fact it’s bullsh*t. You’ve brought your straw man here to die.
The Palestinians only official claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194. No more, no less. This is the definition used for UNGA res 194.
And before you move onto the idiotic Hasbara spiel about UNRWA, UNGA res 194 was written before was an UNRWA to have a definition. The UNRWA definition isn’t even applicable to the final status of refugees. The UNRWA definition is only to ascertain who is illegible for assistance while they are refugees. link to unrwa.org
Try some simple maths. Those who had their usual place of residence within Israel’s actual borders of 1948 and who fled, were A) not the entire non-Jewish Arab population in the area encompassed by Israel’s territory B) even combined, they were still a smaller in number than the Jewish population C) If this PART of the non-Jewish Arab population who fled, had returned in 1948, combined with those who didn’t flee, they’d still have been smaller in number than the Jewish population = no demographic threat by returning in 1948.
Returning now, ALL are over 64 yrs of age, minimum. They were children in 1948. Now they’re past the age of rampant procreation, nearing the end of their time on this planet (the life expectancy of a Palestine refugee today is 73yrs, lower for those from 1948) and; those who “after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date” now number only a few thousand old people. It does not include lineal descendants born outside of Israel, in 1948 they were not “persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.”
There is no demographic threat to Israel, nor was there ever. There has only been silly Israeli fearmongering for 64 years in order to prevent any return at all.
There IS a demographic threat to a one state Greater Israel, which can only be a Jewish dominated majority by cleansing the Palestinians from their rightful territories OR convincing every Jew on the planet go live in a Greater Israel and procreate like crazy.
Those who had their usual place of residence within Israel’s actual borders of 1948 and who fled, were A) not the entire non-Jewish Arab population in the area encompassed by Israel’s territory B) even combined, they were still a smaller in number than the Jewish population C) If this PART of the non-Jewish Arab population who fled, had returned in 1948, combined with those who didn’t flee, they’d still have been smaller in number than the Jewish population = no demographic threat by returning in 1948.
Talknic, your math is wrong. Of the “Jewish State” in the Partition Plan, the UN counted roughly 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs, but also listed 100,000 Bedouins, who were counted separately from those 400,000 Arabs. So even in the 55% allotted, Jews were just barely the majority, if that. In Jerusalem, which was slated to be an international city, the numbers were approximately 100,000 Jews and 100,000 Arabs. In the UN “Arab State” there were only 10,000 or so Jews, with the vast majority of the population being Arab.
Since Israel grabbed more than its allotted amount, and conquered an additional 23% (roughly half of the “Arab State”) of Mandate Palestine, that means that the territory it conquered totally shifted the real demographic balance in the new state of Israel in favor of the Palestinian Arabs. That is why Israel ethnically cleansed them in the first place, and why Israel can never be considered a true democracy. Estimates of those who fled or were expelled and not allowed to return range from 750,000 to 900,000. Estimates of the number remaining in Israel after 1950 are around 150,000, with the number being roughly divided between 50,000 who had never left, 50,000 who had managed to return undetected to their homes, and 50,000 who were included in the territory that Jordan turned over to Israel under an armistice agreement. If Israel had kept all its claimed territory and not expelled its Palestinian inhabitants, Israeli demographics would have been roughly on the order of at least 900,000 Palestinian Arabs (using the low figure for refugees) and only 600,000 Jews. Even with unlimited Jewish immigration, Israel would have had a very significant non-Jewish population. Hence the ethnic cleansing, which the Zionist leadership always knew would be necessary.
“Of the “Jewish State” in the Partition Plan, the UN counted roughly 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs, but also listed 100,000 Bedouins, who were counted separately from those 400,000 Arabs. So even in the 55% allotted, Jews were just barely the majority, if that.”
No, they weren’t!
“It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
link to domino.un.org, page 41
corrected link to domino.un.org
BTW link to domino.un.org doesn’t enumerate how many Jewish Bedouin were in the proposed Jewish State
yep outnumbered the Jews 2 to 1.
No, they weren’t!
Talback, I was trying to be gentle and diplomatic in correcting talknic, who was claiming that Jews outnumbered Palestinian Arabs in the proposed “Jewish State”. Population figures are rarely exact enough to claim conclusively that there were more non-Jews than Jews in the proposed state, but its likely that there were. Certainly within the area conquered by Israel, which greatly exceeded the part the UN allotted to the “Jewish State”, the majority of the population was Palestinian, until they were ethnically cleansed and refused their right to return to their homes.
tree
” Of the “Jewish State” in the Partition Plan, the UN counted roughly 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs, but also listed 100,000 Bedouins, who were counted separately from those 400,000 Arabs”
There were Jewish Bedouin.
“Since Israel grabbed more than its allotted amount, and conquered an additional 23% (roughly half of the “Arab State”) of Mandate Palestine..”
Mandate ended May 14th midnight. Israel was declared May 15th. From that moment two entities existed. Mandate Palestine did not. The “State of Israel” and “Palestine”, were acknowledged by the Provisional Govt of Israel on May 22nd 1948. Israel illegally acquired by war an additional 50% of Palestine (what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine)
“that means that the territory it conquered totally shifted the real demographic balance in the new state of Israel in favor of the Palestinian Arabs”
The extra territory was never legally annexed to Israel. The right to territory by conquest was illegal in 1945 before Israel was declared. In order to make sense of the figures one cannot include territory that was never Sovereign to Israel.
“Estimates of those who fled or were expelled and not allowed to return range from 750,000 to 900,000″
Indeed, but they were from BOTH Sovereign Israeli territory AND territory slated for the Arab State. The 750,000 to 900,000 estimate is not applicable to those who fled from Israel’s recognized sovereignty of May 15th 1948.
Those who fled Israel were only a PART of the Arab population of the territory that legally became Israel. Israel had already been recognized and was a UN Member state BEFORE making any claim to any territories outside the State of Israel (31st Aug 1949)
“Estimates of the number remaining in Israel after 1950 are around 150,000, with the number being roughly divided between 50,000 who had never left, 50,000 who had managed to return undetected to their homes, and 50,000 who were included in the territory that Jordan turned over to Israel under an armistice agreement. “
Includes territory never legally annexed to Israel, “outside the State of Israel” and “occupied”… Also occupied by May 22nd 1948 according to the Laws of War .
” If Israel had kept all its claimed territory and not expelled its Palestinian inhabitants, Israeli demographics would have been roughly on the order of at least 900,000 Palestinian Arabs (using the low figure for refugees) and only 600,000 Jews”
But it’s not the figure for the actual Sovereign territory of Israel. It includes refugees who fled from areas outside of Israel.
“Hence the ethnic cleansing, which the Zionist leadership always knew would be necessary”
Seems so. link to wp.me
You all cannot adequately explain and/or justify the actions of the Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim world in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan that gave them everything, and a whole lot more, but yet they chose war instead.
Had they accepted the UN plan, many lives would have been saved. Many families would have been spared the heartbreak(s) of losing family members.
The Arabs must be held responsible for their mistake in 1948. Don’t sweep their actions under the carpet.
giladg, the intention of the zionists then and now is no different. they want all the land and they are going for it come hell or high water. it is you sweeping the responsible party under the rug by trying to shift blame here. 1948 is past, this is history and it is an ongoing nakba still being carried out today.
Any person of sane mind would have rejected their country being partitioned for the sake of a foreign ideology.
Besides, The Jewish leadership met and decided against accepting the UN partition borders prior to their declaration of independence. The side that prevailed argued that they should keep any extra territory won in warfare (read: terrorist land grab).
>> You all cannot adequately explain and/or justify the actions of the Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim world in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan that gave them everything, and a whole lot more …
Zio-supremacism sure does make people stupid.
Before partition, Palestinians had exactly what they had, which was everything. Partition – which took from them a part of what was theirs – could not possibly have given them “everything”, never mind “everything, and a whole lot more”.
And what partition didn’t take away from the Palestinians, Jewish terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, did.
giladg
” when they rejected the UN partition plan that gave them everything”
What ‘everything’ did it ‘give’ them? Israel got 54% of Palestine. Palestinians were ‘given’ 46% of their own land. The Ziocaine addict’s notion of ‘give’ is a brain dive into a logic vacuum.
” yet they chose war instead”
Refugees flee. The Palestinians who fled their own land, didn’t chose or wage war on anyone, didn’t invade Israeli territory. They fled the violence. They weren’t there. It’s the right of all civilians to flee violence and return at the first practical opportunity.
Nor did they elect any leaders of the Arab States who represented them. Not even Amin al-Husayni, appointed by a Jewish British High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. Nor did they vote for the regimes governing the Arab States who invaded “Palestine” May 15th 1948.
“Had they accepted the UN plan, many lives would have been saved.”
They were not obliged to accept the plan. It was non-binding and; Jewish forces were already OUTSIDE of the territory allocated for the Jewish State BEFORE Israel was declared, cleansing, razing villages, dispossessing.
Israel declared and was accepted into the UN on the basis that it had declared “as envisaged in” in UNGA 181, no reservations.
“The Arabs must be held responsible for their mistake in 1948.”
Uh? The Palestinians could not declare independent sovereignty by the 1st October 1948 even had they wanted to. Israel had Palestinian territory, “outside the State of Israel” under military control by the 22nd May 1948. One can’t declare independent sovereignty if one’s territory is partially occupied by another entity.
“Don’t sweep their actions under the carpet.”
Fair enough. But under which UNSC resolutions are these actions condemned? You must know, surely.
“You all cannot adequately explain and/or justify the actions of the Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim world in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan that gave them everything, and a whole lot more, but yet they chose war instead.
Had they accepted the UN plan, many lives would have been saved. Many families would have been spared the heartbreak(s) of losing family members.
The Arabs must be held responsible for their mistake in 1948. Don’t sweep their actions under the carpet.”
The UN was not in position to give the Palestinians what allready belonged to them. And if the Jewish separatists had accepted the legal outcome of the mandate (Independence) and hadn’t try to conquer Palestine instead, many lives would have been saved. Instead they chose war, massacre and expulsion to conquer land and achieve a Jewish majority. To put it in your words: “Now that is just not right, and you know it.”
@giladg, “Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians … is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. ”
Israel achieved its Jewish majority and hence existence as a “Jewish state” by expelling them, so it seems to me what you are saying is Jewish countries should be allowed to commit mass murder, terror, ethnic cleansing and religious discrimination. I don’t see you claiming this so-called right for any other kind of country, do you think Aryan nations had that right? Why do you think Jews have the “right” to mass murder and ethnic cleansing?
The Berlin Biennale started on April 27.
The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel had just this to say about the key on April 26:
“It’s a symbol of the longing of the Palestiniens for freedom of movement and a state of their own.”
This sentence avoids mentioning “return” and shows how difficult it is in Germany to go against the official pro-Israel policy and side with the Palestiniens.
Thanks Klaus
Out of curiosity Klaus, how many Germans know anything about the Morgenthau post WWII plan for dismantling Germany and scattering Germans to the four winds forever? Had it not been for some US politicians and other government’s officials visiting Germany and seeing what Morgenthau ‘s cabal was doing there, there would be no Germany today.
There is some connection in my mind that says Germany should realize decent people put a stop to Morgenthau’s plan to destroy Germany after the war and that realization should figure into Germany’s position regarding Israel and I/P as much as any German Nazi guilt in WWII.
As much as those responsible for the holocuast are responsible, they are also now responsible for Israel’s crimes.
I don’t know how many people know about the Morgenthau plan today. The last time I heard it mention by someone it was more of a joke.
As to Germany’s responsibility vis-a-vis Palestine, I agree. Although Günter Grass’ poem didn’t address the I/P issue directly, he was the first to use the term “crime” referring to Israeli policy. A crime, we shouldn’t become part of.
For decades after WW II Germany didn’t really have a foreign policy of its own. We followed the American lead. Irak was the first time we didn’t. Hopefully soon, we will not follow the US I/P policy either.
Please do, indeed. We need it on a college tour, and as many grade schools as we can get it into and in every Holocaust memorial and museum. Create a mini one like the traveling Vietnam Memorial Wall. Let the Nakba be as common knowledge to Americans and the world as their most cherished days of observance.
The time is definitely now.
The website “artnet.de” writes about the Biennale and covers 12 objects, one of them the “Key of Return” (with a picture). They say this, more appropriately, April 25:
- “It stands for the right of return of the Palestiniens who had to leave their houses during the mass expulsions in 1948 and 1967 but took their keys along, because they assumed they would soon return. On March 12 the Key of Return was sent on a journey to Berlin – a journey that for most people of Palestine is impossible.”
I should add that the artnet.de commentary on the Biennale has the headline:
– “The Key to the World” -
Off topic – On Günter Grass
The German PEN Center voted today overwhelmingly against a motion to deprive Grass – because of his anti-Israel poem – of his honorary presidency of the center.
The Israeli ambassador to Germany had said in advance of the PEN center’s meeting: “One doesn’t have to be a literary Nobel laurate to understand that what Grass has said has nothing to do with reality.”