@Kindatired
So you have a right of return to Israel (“democracy “) if you or your mother are/were the right religion.
But no return and no compensation if you are a Palestinian displaced in 1948 because Israel (“democracy “ makes the laws .
You are mixing up the Law of Return, an actual law, made by Israel - a sovereign country - and the so called ‘right’ of return. The Palestinians possess no such right. Regarding compensation, Palestinians were offered a $30 billion package in the 2000 peace negotiations. Arafat rejected the deal.
Israel disregards the UN even though it owes its existence to the UN.
The basis for propping up a religious state is the Holocaust which occurred prior to 1948.
The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on 22 November 1974, declared the right of return to be an "inalienable right". It’s an inalienable right that doesn’t need a specific law.
The UN General Assembly’s powers are limited, it cannot confer legal or binding rights. Therefore, the resolution is purely advisory it does not and cannot create a ‘right’ to anything including ‘return’.
The recommendations that were put forward to the Security Council in June 1976 by the committee set up from resolution 3236 including the ‘right’ to return were rejected.
Furthermore, dialogue is essential for political solutions and denying the right of return is not a good starting point because it denies the 1948 Nakba which is the reason that right of return is being pursued in the first place.
Highlighting that the Palestinians do not possess a ‘right’ of return is exactly a good starting point. It was a deal breaker in the previous negotiations of 2000. It doesn’t deny that Palestinians were expelled from the land. There is no International law that requires Israel to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel. No treaties or binding UN resolutions were violated by Israel's expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 conflict and none provide a right to return for Palestinian refugees.
Anyone who denies the validity of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state would get jumped on with cries of anti-semitism but it seems ok to deny the Nakba or suggest that people who were displaced forcibly within living memory should be compensated by the wealthy state that is responsible. The wealthy state that spends billions of US dollars killing those they dispossessed.
A slightly confused argument. I mentioned in a previous post that 700,000 Palestinians were expelled (some fled) in 1948. This was not extraordinary at that time. Just like the 10 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe did not have the right to return to their birthplaces and very much wanted to return.
Parity of esteem is essential for peaceful coexistence, be it in a single state or a two state solution or a multistate solution.
Mental health is very important on both sides, I think the Israelis would reject a single state for their mental health (probably physical health as well).
And it’s completely unreasonable to try to make the Palestinians pay for the actions of other Middle Eastern and North African countries who expelled Jewish communities- let’s just pre-empt that justification because it’s a bit whataboutery we’ve just heard too often..
Thank you for bringing attention to other communities being expelled from their birthplaces too in the 1940s and 1950s. The expulsion of the Palestinians was - as mentioned before - nothing extraordinary to the times.
Undermining UNWRA is effectively denying the right of return and handing over to settlers what rightfully belongs to Palestinians and this will not lead to peace.
UNWRA is the ideological backbone of the so called right to return. Palestinians do not possess a right to return to Israel. For too long advocates for Palestine have nourished, indulged and sustained the Palestinians to keep fighting for an annihilationist cause, rather than moving on and creating a prosperous lives for themselves.