Rights of return– first class and no-class

Israel/Palestine
on 59 Comments

Yousef Munnayer does a fine job responding to Roger Cohen’s latest column, “The Blight of Return.” So do many of the Times’ own readers (see the comments: reader picks).

One of the most unappealing character traits anyone can exhibit is excessive self-love. For liberal Zionists, the tragedy of Israel is what it’s done to the Jewish people… and that’s basically it. The Palestinians are minor bit-players in a titanic family drama that sets the smart, sensitive and urbane (Cohen) against the smart, rough and gruff (Lieberman). They ‘love and wrestle’ with one another on stage.

Sometimes, self-love can make one appear less-than-smart or sensitive or urbane. Like when it causes one to substitute Zionist exceptionalism for the basic ability to apprehend the obvious. Norbert from Finland put it this way:

No right of return after 65 years for one side but a right of return for the other after 2000 years. I sense a certain contradiction here.

Cohen is too smart and genteel to respond with the argument that God gave him the land. But that’s something that lots of other Zionists openly claim. So the more analogous question is whether Jews of German descent ought to have the right of return to Germany – a right they’ve enjoyed since 1949. A right all of their descendants continue to enjoy:

A study at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University study found 100,000 Israelis have German passports.

During the Nazi era, the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws stripped Jews of German citizenship. But since May 1949, German law gives Jews who fled Nazi Germany the right to German citizenship, including all their descendants.

How would Cohen respond to that? I don’t know – and it doesn’t really matter. Liberal Zionists have about as much influence on Palestinian agency as a midnight cricket in Palau. And Palestinian agency is what he’s really whinging about.

About Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American who was born in the Gaza Strip. He is a PD Soros Fellow, co-editor of After Zionism and co-founder and CEO of liwwa.com. Twitter: @ahmedmoor

Other posts by .


Posted In:

59 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    January 20, 2013, 3:51 pm

    Liberal Zionists have about as much influence on Palestinian agency as a midnight cricket in Palau.

    sweeeet

  2. pabelmont
    January 20, 2013, 6:33 pm

    A comment on Cohen’s article, can anyone check this out?: I found this and another mention of the book with interesting history, (by Sands)

    Duncan Lennox, Canada

    Who has a legitimate claim to all of Palestine if not the indigenous people of the region ? In 1918, David Ben Gurion (PM for 2 decades) & Y.Ben Zvi(2nd Pres of Israel), co-authored a history of Israel in which they agreed with professional historians that there was no exile after the Romans put down the 2 major revolts of the 1st & 2nd centuries AD. eg.The Jewish Encycopedia says that 90%+ of the people stayed in place after the 70 AD revolt. Further they agreed that most of the Judaists of Byzantine Palestine converted to Islam in the 7th century to avoid paying a head tax on all non-muslims. It was only after the Pal`s revolted in 1929 & 1936-39 against the loss of their land to foreigners that these 2 premier Zionists decided that assimilation of the former Judaists was not going to work & that ethnic cleansing was needed & OK. eg In 1948 Ben Gurion directed the Zionist militias in ethnically cleansing 425 villages +12 urban centers forcing 750,000 indigenous people to become refugees plus occupying half of the area ceded to Pal`s,& no they did not Run Away. That is propaganda as 250,000 were forced from their homes in Jan-May 1948 before any announcement by the neighbours of their intentions of military action. Pal`s have much more ancient Judean DNA than the 20th century colonists who are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism.eg. Demographics prove that the Ashkenazai are mostly the descendants of the Khazars who converted in 700-1200 AD.Zionism is the problem.

  3. mondonut
    January 20, 2013, 11:27 pm

    No right of return after 65 years for one side but a right of return for the other after 2000 years. I sense a certain contradiction here.

    But since May 1949, German law gives Jews who fled Nazi Germany the right to German citizenship, including all their descendants.

    There is nothing here too difficult to understand. Germany has exercised its absolute right as a sovereign state to determine its own policy of immigration. Israel has done exactly the same. Neither country’s rights have been trumped by dubious RoR claims with tenuous legal authority.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 21, 2013, 2:51 am

      Germany has exercised its absolute right as a sovereign state to determine its own policy of immigration. Israel has done exactly the same.

      nut, there was no state of israel when jews were granted right of ‘return’ after 2000 years, so your analogy isn’t applicable.

      whoops!

      here’s what moor wrote:

      So the more analogous question is whether Jews of German descent ought to have the right of return to Germany – a right they’ve enjoyed since 1949.

      his analogy was morphing this ‘ror- descent/birthright’ into a state accepted policy. which segues perfectly with palestinians going back to their home.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 4:58 am

        his analogy was morphing

        There really is no such analogy. Official German immigration policy discourages ethnic Germans from trying to come and imposes quotas to prevent that from happening. Here is an old article in which (then) federal government commissioner for Aussiedler affairs, Jochen Welt had explained:

        In the years to come, even fewer Aussiedler are expected to settle in Germany, according to Welt. He attributed the drop in numbers mainly to Germany’s policy of helping to improve conditions for Aussiedler in their countries of origin. The policy has “strengthened the Aussiedlers’ will to stay” in the land of their birth rather than move to Germany, Welt said.

        Discouraging the continued massive “return” of Aussiedler—now a central pillar of Germany’s migration policy—involves vocational training, loans, language training, the establishment of cultural institutions and hospitals, and work among youth in communities of origin.

        The policy of encouraging Aussiedler to stay put, and the quotas limiting their “return,” emerged in the beginning of the 1990s. The quotas and measures may have been related to the fact that in this period, Germany’s unemployment rates rose and post-reunification euphoria declined, and with it the public’s enthusiasm for admitting more immigrants.

        — Fewer Ethnic Germans Immigrating to Ancestral Homeland, By Veysel Oezcan, Humboldt University Berlin link to migrationinformation.org

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 6:30 pm

        There really is no such analogy.

        hostage, moor wrote So the more analogous question is whether Jews of German descent ought to have the right of return to Germany. how is that not morphing this ‘ror- descent/birthright’ into a state accepted policy if Jews of German descent have enjoyed this right since 1949?

      • Hostage
        January 22, 2013, 1:07 am

        So the more analogous question is whether Jews of German descent ought to have the right of return to Germany. how is that not morphing . . . ?

        Because Israel treats all Jewish immigration as a zero sum game. It does not recognize any analogous right of return to Germany. In fact The Jewish Agency for Israel, the WZO, and the State of Israel have done everything in their power, short of drone attacks and nukes, to make the German government recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people and to pressure the German government into erecting bureaucratic obstacles which prevent Jewish immigration to Germany. That is NOT how you would behave if you really thought that Germany had an analogous sovereign “right” to establish a legal RoR like the one Israel offers to those very same Jews:

        BERLIN — Since the beginning of the year, new rules on immigration have had the effect of sharply reducing the numbers of Jews immigrating to Germany, at least temporarily ending a 15-year policy aimed at rebuilding the Jewish community that was destroyed by the Nazis.

        “I have the impression that they want to close down the whole program,” Stephan Kramer, general secretary of the Central Council of Jews, the official representative of the German Jewish community, said in an interview, arguing that the new conditions demanded by Germany were vague and hard to put into practice.

        “They haven’t presented an objective list of conditions that one can control,” he said.

        This change was welcomed by Israel, which has complained for years that Germany’s encouragement of Jewish immigration had the effect of discouraging former Soviet Jews from going to Israel itself. Indeed, last year for the first time, more former Soviet Jews, many of them no doubt attracted by Germany’s generous social services network, settled in this country than in Israel.

        “It shouldn’t come as a surprise that at the end of the day Israel would like to see the Jews immigrate to Israel, not to Germany,” Shimon Stein, Israel’s ambassador to Germany, said in an interview.

        Jewish leaders also welcome some new restrictions, but for different reasons. Past German policy in a way inverted the notorious Nuremberg Laws of 1935, when the Nazis barred Jews from most areas of German life. The reasoning after 1989 was that anybody who would have been persecuted by the Nuremberg definition of a Jew ought now to be granted safe haven in the new Germany.

        But this in effect meant that tens of thousands of people admitted as Jews by Germany would not be seen as Jews by the official Jewish community, . . .

        — By Richard Bernstein, NYT, “Germany tightens Jewish immigration rules”
        link to nytimes.com

        See also:
        * “Germany is moving to end mass immigration of Jews” link to forward.com
        * The restrictions on the right of ethnic Germans to return to Germany that became effective in January 1991
        link to countrystudies.us

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2013, 11:37 am

        “Agency for Israel, the WZO, and the State of Israel have done everything in their power, short of drone attacks and nukes, to make the German government recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people and to pressure the German government into erecting bureaucratic obstacles which prevent Jewish immigration to Germany.”

        Doesn’t surprise me. Zionists think they own the Jews.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 9:06 am

        Annie Robbins says: nut, there was no state of israel when jews were granted right of return after 2000 years, so your analogy isn’t applicable.
        ==========================
        They did not have a “right” of return prior to Israel. The British allowed some immigration and then actively prevented others.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 4:48 pm

        They did not have a “right” of return prior to Israel

        mondonut, you wrote Germany has exercised its absolute right as a sovereign state to determine its own policy of immigration. Israel has done exactly the same.

        ‘israel’ didn’t do that. the UN did it when it gifted palestinian land to jews, that was prior to the time the state of israel was founded. had the UN not done that the state of israel would not exist. so do not pretend it was the state of israel that initiated this ‘return’. it’s not the same as germany at all.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 5:23 pm

        Annie Robbins says: the UN did it when it gifted palestinian land to jews, that was prior to the time the state of israel was founded. had the UN not done that the state of israel would not exist. so do not pretend it was the state of israel that initiated this ‘return’. it’s not the same as germany at all.
        —————————————————–
        It is the same thing when discussing what is happening in the present tense. If you want to move the goalposts back prior to Israel, well then, it is still the same thing. Jewish people did not emigrate to Israel under a RoR based in International Law. They were returning to Israel as permitted by the British authorities, and prior to that by the Turkish authorities. Both of which had the right to determine it so.

        And BTW, you should know better. The UN did not gift land to the jews.

      • Cliff
        January 21, 2013, 6:01 pm

        The British had no right to decide whether Jews should be allowed into Palestinian territory or not.

        They had no more legitimacy than any other occupying power in allowing a foreign entity to colonize land the occupier is occupying.

        As for the ‘Turkish authorities’ – do tell. How many Jews did the ‘Turkish authorities’ allow into Palestine as a matter of policy. What was their argument for doing so?

        Who elected these ‘Turkish authorities’? Did the Palestinian majority agree with them?

        In fact, how about this, mondonut – does anyone who disagrees with you have any legitimacy in this argument? Namely – the Palestinian majority that was ethnically cleansed by the Zionist movement and, as per your latest comment, the British and ‘Turkish authorities’?

        Where does this non-Jewish majority factor in to your argument?

        You are simply making an opportunistic and superficial argument (which you have done throughout this thread) to avoid discussing issues of legitimacy.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 6:02 pm

        If you want to move the goalposts back prior to Israel…. The UN did not gift land to the jews.

        nut, i’m not moving any goalposts. a little something happened between the british rule and the state of israel. do you know what that was? why are you whitewashing the UN out of the state’s founding?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 6:09 pm

        If you want to move the goalposts back prior to Israel

        the topic is what laws facilitated unlimited jewish immigration to palestine. if you’re going to talk laws and analogies (like the german law that granted this ‘right’) then it’s instructive to look at the governing body that granted this ‘right’ to colonize palestine to the jewish people. and initially, that was not the state of israel, it was the UN. and it was done with the understanding nothing would obstruct the rights of the people living there, an agreement israel promptly broke and went on to claim they were merely responding to arab aggression, which is a lie . it’s you wanting to skip over this little technicality and pretend it as israel who somehow materialized out of nothingness and set in stone the legalities for jews to move to palestine, all on their lonesome.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 21, 2013, 6:15 pm

        “Both of which had the right to determine it so.”

        Wrong. They had the power to do it. They had no right to take the land from its rightful owners and give it to the zio criminals. But it’s like that with you zios; it’s always a matter of might making right, in your book, which is pathetic, because you’re doing nothing less than justifying the Holocaust by doing so. Typical zionist.

        “And BTW, you should know better. The UN did not gift land to the jews.”

        You’re correct. In order to “gift” something, one has to own it. The UN stole the Palestinians’ land with the aid and assistance of the zionists.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 11:53 pm

        Jewish people did not emigrate to Israel under a RoR based in International Law. They were returning to Israel as permitted by the British authorities, and prior to that by the Turkish authorities. Both of which had the right to determine it so.

        A country cannot cite its own municipal laws as an excuse to violate its obligations under customary international law. In fact, the international criminal tribunals have held that any attempt to do that constitutes a violation of the law in question. In this case, it is the customary and conventional prohibition against forced population transfers or deportations and excessive destruction and expropriation of property. Those are serious war crimes and crimes against humanity for which no statutory limitations apply.

        You are repeatedly trying to avoid the obvious consequences of Israel’s violations of the prohibition against the threat or use of force to deport or transfer the lawful inhabitants across international frontiers and the wholesale destruction of their towns and villages or the expropriation of their land and properties. The right of displaced persons to be repatriated and compensated in such cases has nothing to do with the subject of immigration. See for example the principles reflected in Article 144 of the Treaty of Sèvres:

        The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-i-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.

        The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found. Such property shall be restored free of all charges or servitudes with which it may have been burdened and without compensation of any kind to the present owners or occupiers, subject to any action which they may be able to bring against the persons from whom they derived title.

        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2013, 11:41 am

        “Both of which had the right to determine it so.”

        So one the one hand, we castigate the Gentiles for their persecution of Jews, but when these same Gentiles give us the fruit of their persecution of others, that’s just fine? All of a sudden their dispensations are holy?

    • straightline
      January 21, 2013, 3:52 am

      I don’t see the analogy – well to be precise I see your comment as a good argument against the current Israeli policy of immigration. Germany has allowed the Jews who were forced out during the Nazi regime to return – and their descendants. Israel has not allowed the Palestinians who were driven out by the Nakba to return nor their descendants. So what was your point? And what is dubious about their claims? Please elucidate?

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 9:08 am

        straightline says: I don’t see the analogy
        ======================================
        The analogy is that both states are exercising their right to determine their own policy of immigration. Neither is responding to some “International Law”. The fact that they have chosen differently further illustrates that they themselves have the right to choose their own policy.

      • sardelapasti
        January 21, 2013, 6:10 pm

        “both states [postwar Germany and the Zionist entity] and are exercising their right to determine their own policy of immigration. Neither is responding to some “International Law”.

        Germany definitely is. The Band of Robbers isn’t.

    • LeaNder
      January 21, 2013, 8:32 am

      mondonut, since you compare to German laws. Yes, Germany brought back many Russian Germans under Kohl, people that had left Germany centuries ago and yes, even grants special immigration conditions to Russian Jews. The vast majority of German Jews have Russian roots today. Why not bring all the Germans in Australia and the US back too, let alone all the Germans somewhere else? And strictly that is the Zionist idea, although there always was an inherent paradox, since at the same time they felt that their enterprise should not harm the Jews in other countries were of course they should enjoy equal rights.

      Yesterday I watched the report about a new book by a young German journalist who hiked through Israel/Palestine, encountering people on both sides. Among the people he met were settlers and the Palestinian protest camp (of which we do not get any images, we get an image of the settlers in passing though), but also the Palestinian mother of a suicide bomber, of which we do get the story.

      In Jerusalem he meets an old lady, Karla Pilpel born Rothstein, from his hometown Berlin. Her parents had sent her to England under the Nazis with one of the children transports, they died in the camps. After the war she went to Israel. She talked with him about the her difficult relationship to Germany but she also talks about feeling like a stranger in Israel:

      A German Journalists hikes through the Israel/Palestine conflict.

      Karla Pilpel: I wondered how I could invite a German to my house. Since for years I didn’t want to have anything to do with Germans. I almost forgot the German language. It did hurt too much. But then I thought Martin is a new generation, he doesn’t have anything to do with it.

      Narraters Voice: Thus, Karla Pilpel told the author of her difficult relationship to her former home country but also about the pain of feeling a stranger in Israel, her new one.

      Karla Pilpel: When I think about what is happening here, I think about Germany in 1936/37/38. The Jews hate the Arabs and the Arabs hate the Jews. Why? Why?

      Martin Schäuble: What does this remind you of?

      That’s how it started. Since the Germans hated us. And I am always very much afraid of what is going to happen here.

      towards the end of the report:

      Karla Pilpel: I am so disappointed. If I was younger I wouldn’t live in Israel today.

      Martin Schäuble: Why?

      Karla Pilpel: Because of the hate. (she pauses) Between the two sides.

      It obviously is the standard to pick out German Jews prominently on TV over here, although they will soon be gone. Since it is most interesting for us what they feel like over there. And this lady tells us, she feels like a stranger in her own “new country”, it even reminds her of how it all started over here.

      Do you feel this hate will mysteriously vaporize if you only stay on course? Schäuble told us he hasn’t met one single family on both sides that wasn’t traumatized by events. Is this a valid start into the future? How will this trauma be passed on to the next generations?

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 10:53 am

        LeaNder says: mondonut, since you compare to German laws.
        ===============================
        Umm, no I was not. I was pointing out that both Germany and Israel (and every other country on the planet) exercise their own immigration policy as they see fit.

        As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you are talking about.

      • straightline
        January 21, 2013, 10:52 pm

        And the rest of the world has the right to boycott it.

    • eljay
      January 21, 2013, 9:50 am

      >> There is nothing here too difficult to understand.

      And, yet, you don’t understand it. You think offering German citizenship to former German citizens and their descendants is the same as granting Israeli citizenship to people of the Jewish faith anywhere in the world who i) have never been Israeli and ii) have or had no real and tangible ties to the territory currently comprising Israel – even as Israel denies citizenship to non-Jews who have and had very real and tangible ties to the territory currently comprising Israel.

      Zio-supremacists aren’t very smart, but at least they’re consistent.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 4:57 pm

        eljay says: And, yet, you don’t understand it. You think offering German citizenship to former German citizens and their descendants is the same as granting Israeli citizenship to people of the Jewish faith anywhere in the world…
        ===========================
        Yes I do. It is exactly the same. Germany as a sovereign state decided to provide citizenship to former German citizens and their descendants – they were not required to do so, they chose to. The same is true in Israel, they have an immigration policy of their own choice.

        What is inconsistent is the viewpoint of yourself and your buddies. You seem to believe that Germany and every other country of the world is entitled to make their own decisions, but Israel is not. And that Israel must be forced to admit millions of Palestinians against the best interest of the state and its citizenry.

      • Cliff
        January 21, 2013, 5:09 pm

        @mondonut

        You’ve at least admitted that this isn’t about right or wrong, but rather ‘interests’.

        Exactly.

        A Zionist supremacist and racist, thus Israel, would not want to allow the people they removed to create their country.

        I agree, it would not be in the best interests from the point of view of a Zionist supremacist.

        You want to maintain your Jewish majority.

        Tell me why it was in Germany’s “best interests” to allow Jewish refugees and their descendants to return to Germany.

      • eljay
        January 21, 2013, 5:17 pm

        >> Yes I do. It is exactly the same.

        No, you don’t. And it’s not exactly the same. Germany’s immigration policy applies to ex-pat Germans and their descendants. Aliya does not apply to ex-pat Israelis and their descendants. Aliya is a religiously-based and purely Jewish-supremacist policy.

        But you that. And you know its indefensible. But you’re a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, so all you can do is “stay the course” and play the victim. :-(

      • sardelapasti
        January 21, 2013, 6:19 pm

        “Germany and every other country of the world is entitled to make their own decisions,”
        in accordance with international law, as civilized nations.

        “but Israel is not.”
        Of course it isn’t. Because, illegitimate as a state anyway, it has never made a so-called decision that has ever complied with civilized international law. Its very existence, that of a bastard state of murderers and pirates is contrary to it.

        “And that Israel must be forced to admit millions of Palestinians against the best interest of the state and its citizenry” Their state and citizenry interest is not anyone else’s worry. Their racial supremacist state and citizenry have stolen and murdered and are ruling on lands to which they have not a shred of a shadow of any rights. When, not if, they start wholesale genocide and/or a new world war, you’ll follow orders from the Propaganda-Abteilung and say that they are entitled to it.

      • RoHa
        January 21, 2013, 6:26 pm

        “It is exactly the same. Germany as a sovereign state decided to provide citizenship to former German citizens and their descendants – they were not required to do so, they chose to. The same is true in Israel, they have an immigration policy of their own choice. ”

        The difference is that the German policy seems to be a moral choice, while the Israeli policy is clearly an immoral choice.

        Once again we see that Zionists do not understand morality.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 10:44 pm

        What is inconsistent is the viewpoint of yourself and your buddies. You seem to believe that Germany and every other country of the world is entitled to make their own decisions, but Israel is not.

        In the case of Germany, the government is not claiming sovereignty over another people’s territory and automatically extending better legal rights to foreigners than the rights enjoyed by members of its own indigenous population. The German law merely governs the criteria used to determine eligibility. It does not confer an unqualified right of return to ethnic Germans.

        FYI, Germany like other members of the EC, have agreed to be legally bound by the terms of the “acquis communautaire” and the European Convention on Human Rights. So it has agreed to 1) refrain from adopting immigration rules that discriminate against other ethnic groups; and 2) to submit any dispute in that connection to the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Council of Ministers, e.g.
        * Discriminatory treatment – Breach of Article 14 & 8 ECHR link to mcgillandco.co.uk
        * Acquis communautaire link to eurofound.europa.eu

        The 200,000 or so ethnic German’s that were admitted into the country prior to the 1990s were mainly Germans that were displaced by other states as a result of WWII. The persons admitted beginning in the 1990s were subject to quotas that are being used to discourage otherwise qualified ethnic German candidates for immigration on the basis of other weighted factors. I’ve already pointed out that the German government officially discourages ethnic Germans from immigrating.

    • talknic
      January 21, 2013, 11:13 am

      mondonut “Germany has exercised its absolute right as a sovereign state to determine its own policy of immigration”

      RoR is NOT immigration.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 4:46 pm

        talknic says: RoR is NOT immigration.
        =============================
        No kidding. Jewish people are not making aliyah to Israel under some form of RoR, it is enabled under Israeli immigration policy. The same is true in Gernamy, immigration policy.

      • Cliff
        January 21, 2013, 5:11 pm

        The Right of Return IS immigration.

        Your weasel-wording is going to change that fact.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 5:21 pm

        cliff, it’s not for palestinians but it very much is for jews. written in quite clearly in their nationality law. link to en.wikipedia.org

        so nut doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about saying people are not making aliyah to Israel under some form of RoR

        2000 years and calling it ‘return’, a farce.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 5:42 pm

        Annie Robbins says: cliff, it’s not for palestinians but it very much is for jews. written in quite clearly in their nationality law.
        =================================================
        The Law of Return is not a RoR based in International Law. It is an Israeli immigration policy set forth in their own laws (as you have pointed out), as is their right as a sovereign state. The fact that they both are using the word “return” does not make them the same thing. Jewish people are not making aliyah based on a RoR as defined international law., as you would presume to do for the Palestinians.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2013, 5:49 pm

        . The fact that they both are using the word “return” does not make them the same thing. Jewish people are not making aliyah based on a RoR as defined international law.

        oh you don’t say! snark. we already know that nut, the idea of a jew ‘returning’ is used over and over to cement the idea in the mind of the listener, to be associated to what is commonly identified as ‘been there before’. it’s just a mask for saying ‘jewish only’ so the law doesn’t sound racist. where as international law actually relates to people who are returning (as in physically been there before or their direct recent descendants).

      • Cliff
        January 21, 2013, 5:56 pm

        Mondonut

        you keep reiterating that Israel’s laws are legitimate because Israel is a sovereign State

        that is besides the point

        there are plenty of laws one may find disagreeable, unjust, disgusting, etc.

        simply because Israel is a sovereign State, does not mean it’s laws are legitimate

        legitimacy is subjective and in arguing legitimacy, the participants reveal themselves

        you are, throughout this discussion, focusing on the inane circular argument

        we are, in contrast, arguing about legitimacy

        try to keep up and stop inundating this discussion with your redundant psychological defense mechanism

        from here on out, defend the legitimacy – i.e., the justification for allowing Jews on the basis of simply being Jews into Israeli citizenship but denying Palestinian refugees and their descendants

        and explain why Germany is allowing Jewish refugees and their descendants to return or immigrate to Germany

        explain the legitimacy beyond ’cause they are a sovereign’/’God exists because it’s in the Bible and the Bible was written by God’

        you are really sad

      • talknic
        January 21, 2013, 10:05 pm

        mondonut

        “Jewish people are not making aliyah to Israel under some form of RoR, it is enabled under Israeli immigration policy. “

        Israel has no Right of Return legislature. Aliyah falls under the Law of Return.

        “The same is true in Gernamy, immigration policy”

        RoR to Germany falls under Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany link to staatsrecht.honikel.de

        Article 116

        (1) Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.

        (2) Former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial, or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall on application have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after May 8, 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.

        German immigration link to auswaertiges-amt.de

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 10:49 pm

        talknic says: RoR is NOT immigration.
        =============================
        No kidding. Jewish people are not making aliyah to Israel under some form of RoR, it is enabled under Israeli immigration policy. The same is true in Gernamy, immigration policy.

        talknic was explaining that Israel is the country of origin for many Palestinian refugees. So they are NOT immigrants.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 11:20 pm

        The Law of Return is not a RoR based in International Law. It is an Israeli immigration policy set forth in their own laws (as you have pointed out), as is their right as a sovereign state.

        Sorry, but the international community of states had already issued a number of declarations before Israel was ever established which explained that the rights of a State do not include the right to commit wrongful acts against others in order to insure its continued existence.

        No state has the right to transfer or deport portions of its population or to prevent them from returning to their country of origin under the color of laws regarding “immigration”.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2013, 11:54 am

        “Sorry, but the international community of states had already issued a number of declarations before Israel was ever established which explained…”

        Since I’m stuck up here with nothing but moose-moss to munch (Dr’s orders), I often wonder what degree of honesty existed between the Zionists and their “human material” out of which they hoped to fashion the new Jew?
        From reading your informative comments, Hostage, I get the idea (I get so many!) that at some level, the Zionists, or certain Zionists must have been aware of how tenuous (maybe spurious is the mot juste?) their claim was.

    • pjdude
      January 21, 2013, 1:11 pm

      the difference is that germany was a expression of self determination ISrael creation was and is the anthithisis of self determination. it doesn’t matter if it was a ” legiatmate) expression of setting immigration policy when the that isn’t legit. and immigration status doesn’t include refusing to let refugees to return to their homes so as usual of zionists your wrong.

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 4:48 pm

        pjdude says: the difference is that germany was a expression of self determination ISrael creation was and is the anthithisis of self determination.
        ==============================
        Are you saying that Israel is not entitled to an immigration policy because the entirety of of the State of Israel is illegitimate? If so, we have nothing further to discuss.

      • Cliff
        January 21, 2013, 5:15 pm

        @mondonut

        Why is Israel legitimate? Israel exists only through the suppression of the indigenous Palestinian majority it destroyed in 48′ and is still waging war against.

        You are making your arguments purely from a position of self-interest.

        In other words, Israel according to you and Zionism is defined by a Jewish majority. Without a Jewish majority Israel doesn’t exist.

        So to keep a Jewish majority, Israel must disregard the RoR.

        You slander the RoR and characterize it as extreme while accepting the notion of a Jewish majority as something benign.

        Explain why – not from a point of view of self-interest, but rather a moral argument – why should Jewish refugees and their descendants be allowed back to Germany and not the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel/Palestine?

      • mondonut
        January 21, 2013, 5:53 pm

        Cliff says: Explain why – not from a point of view of self-interest, but rather a moral argument – why should Jewish refugees and their descendants be allowed back to Germany and not the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel/Palestine?
        =====================================
        Jewish refugees and their descendants are allowed back to Germany not because they have some inherent “right” to do so but because Germany chooses to allow it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

        Similarly, the Palestinians do not possess some inherent “right” to enter Israel. Israel does however possess the right to determine who may immigrate, and they have not chosen to allow in millions of Palestinians. Presumably for the most obvious reason – Israel, as defined by the Israelis, would cease to exist.

      • pjdude
        January 21, 2013, 7:40 pm

        no. I’m saying they can its just irrelevant to a moralistic and legal argument. also the palestinian ROR is not an immigration issue. they were a native population illegally removed from their homes and than illegally prevented from returning to their homes not to mention the wholesale theft of their property.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 11:11 pm

        Are you saying that Israel is not entitled to an immigration policy because the entirety of of the State of Israel is illegitimate? If so, we have nothing further to discuss.

        The notion that Zionists are “discussing” anything has always been specious and utterly pretentious.

        The State of Israel has committed wrongful acts of state from the moment of its inception. It committed the crime of aggression against the indigenous Arab population of Palestine in order to displace the members and expropriate their land and properties. Then it deceitfully labeled the lawful inhabitants as “infiltrators” or “immigrants” and used minefields, snipers, and force majeure to prevent them from returning to their homes and participating in the political, economic, and social life of their own country.

      • IL1948
        January 21, 2013, 11:52 pm

        Explain why – not from a point of view of self-interest, but rather a moral argument – why should Jewish refugees and their descendants be allowed back to Germany and not the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel/Palestine?

        The same reason why you champion the Palestinian right of return… Because Israel will cease to exist if it is implemented.

        Not so with Germany.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 22, 2013, 12:17 am

        it would not cease to exist.it would just cease to exist as a majority jewish state.

      • Hostage
        January 22, 2013, 1:24 am

        The same reason why you champion the Palestinian right of return… Because Israel will cease to exist if it is implemented.

        Not so with Germany.

        But you can only make that meaningless claim because “Nazi” Germany and its racist Nuremberg laws have both ceased to exist. We are saying that “Zionist” Israel and its racist laws should be next.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 22, 2013, 6:37 am

        “Because Israel will cease to exist if it is implemented.”

        Let’s hope for the day when this is done and that abomination is terminated.

      • eljay
        January 22, 2013, 8:22 am

        >> Because Israel will cease to exist if it is implemented.

        Israel may – or may not – cease to exist. Supremacist “Jewish state”, however, will cease to exist, and that’s what troubles Zio-supremacists like you.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2013, 11:59 am

        “The same reason why you champion the Palestinian right of return… Because Israel will cease to exist if it is implemented.”

        IL1948, I ask you, as one landsmann to another: did the United States “cease to exist” when the Civil Rights laws were passed, and affirmative actions taken to implement them? And don’t you want to “share our values”?

        Besides, IL1948, no matter what happens to Israel, politically, the Jewish religion will go on and on, in one form or another. What did Hillel say? “Find a niche, and fill it!” And isn’t that what really matters? Shalom

      • pjdude
        January 22, 2013, 11:25 pm

        refugees have the right to return to their homes immigration policy never comes into it. so yeah the palestinians do have some inherent right to enter “ISrael” because before ISrael invaded(well the zionists) it was their country and they already lived there.

      • Cliff
        January 24, 2013, 3:57 am

        Mondonut

        You are continuing to evade my questions

        You keep reiterating that Israel can do what it wants because its a sovereign state

        I get that

        I am asking you to explain the legitimacy of these actions beyond the circular reasoning you keep repeating

        And yes, the Palestinian RoR is a human right. It doesn’t mean or imply that that right will be realized because Israel is a colonial state that continues to steal land and water from the Palestinians.

        Germany allowed a similar RIGHT to Jewish refugees based on past grievances. For Germany it is a matter of justice.

        For you and Israel it is selfishness, ethnocentrism, nationalism and supremacy

    • Ellen
      January 21, 2013, 7:41 pm

      Nut, that is not true. Under Kohl (as pointed out below) there was a push to increase immigration back into Germany from decendants of Germany. This meant many Volga Germans, or “White Russians.” There was a flood of Jewish Russian/Germans into Germany.

      Israel then put tons of pressure onto Germany to end this policy. Which Germany immedialtely did. This would assure immigration to Isael over Germany.

      The mass migration of Jews from the former Soviet Union to Germany likely will come to a swift end with the introduction of a new law drawn up by Germany’s 16-state governments.

      Read more: link to forward.com

      In spite of all this there is now increasing immigration from Israel to Germany.

  4. kayq
    January 21, 2013, 1:39 am

    I left a similar comment as Norbert’s on Yousef Munnayer’s The Jerusalem Fund blog. Indeed the hypocrisy shines.

    Roger Cohen also tweeted last night that a two state solution would entail no right of return for either side. However I called him out on his incorrect statement saying that the losers here are the Palestinians, as Jews would still be able to make aliyah to Israel as they have done in the past years.

  5. Nevada Ned
    January 21, 2013, 10:28 am

    Human Rights Watch had an internal debate about whether or not the Palestinian Right of Return (ROR) was enshrined in international law. Some people inside HRW claimed the answer was “no”, and some external people agreed. But in the end HRW stood by its principles.

    An internal HRW document that explains it all can be found on Norman Finkelstein’s website
    here.
    Some anonymous person inside HRW leaked it to Finkelstein.

    Thanks, Norman!!

    • talknic
      January 21, 2013, 9:44 pm

      “Some people inside HRW “ are not an authority, nor for that matter is HRW itself. The UNHCR, UNCHR and the ICRC are link to icrc.org

      Never the less from HRW link to normanfinkelstein.com

      Conclusion
      No further scholarly interpretation is needed to say that the right to return of the Palestinians is grounded in international law. In the first place, the letter of the law is clear, and for this reason it should not be subject to any interpretation that runs contrary to its clear intent or that might alter its plain and fundamental meaning

Leave a Reply