- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This House believes that Israel should recognise the Palestinian right of return
This House believes that Israel should recognise the Palestinian right of return
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House believes that Israel should recognise the Palestinian right of return.Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
47 weeks 5 days ago
There are a few missing arguments and points that are crucial:
1. the initial number (without their descendents) of Arab refugees after both 1948 and 1967 is almost the same as number of Jewish refugees that were expelled from Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and etc..
There is one difference - the Jews that were massacred and the ones that were forcefully expelled had a lot more money and property than the "falahs" - agriculturist (land-workers) Arabs that were expelled from Israel.
So any demand from Israel to compensate Arab refugees should consider the compensations that those Arab countries will have to give in return.
2. All the historians (Historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi ) that say that Arabs were mostly forcefully expelled belong to a certain school called "the new historians". There have been many half-truths and misleading information within their research, as can be read in – [Fabricating Israeli history: the 'new historians'/ Ephraim Karsh. second edition. London: F. Cass, 2000], therefore all the numbers given by Morris and others should be checked before considering them as a fact.
There are numerous proofs both it British documents and Arab documents that the Jewish people of some cities bagged their Arab neighbors to stay and promised there will be no harm to them but they refused as they were told by their Arab leaders to leave those cities so that the "Arab rescue military" could massacre all the Jews without Arab residents casualties.
3. During the 1945-1950 there were more than 40milion refuges in the world. They all found solutions for them self except one- the Palestinians. The ones to blame for preserving the refuge problem are mostly the Palestinians and their hosting Arab countries- were they have much less rights than in Israel or the west bank.
4. in no country in the world the rules for getting a citizenship apply for the descendents of a refugee since the beginning of time. The right of return- if ever given – should be given only to those who were expelled and their children. Maybe even second generation. But in no country a fifth or sixth generation of a refugee deserve citizenship.
42 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
So any demand from Israel to compensate Arab refugees should consider the compensations that those Arab countries will have to give in return.
This does not actually effect the Palestinians - surely it is in their interest to have a streight swap as it would not be them paying the compensation to the Israelis.
There are numerous proofs both it British documents and Arab documents that the Jewish people of some cities bagged their Arab neighbors to stay and promised there will be no harm to them but they refused as they were told by their Arab leaders to leave those cities so that the "Arab rescue military" could massacre all the Jews without Arab residents casualties.
Does being forced out by invading arabs somehow make them less worthy of reclaiming their homes?
3. During the 1945-1950 there were more than 40milion refuges in the world. They all found solutions for them self except one- the Palestinians. The ones to blame for preserving the refuge problem are mostly the Palestinians and their hosting Arab countries- were they have much less rights than in Israel or the west bank.
While it is undeniable that countries like Jordan have to take some of the blame for not being willing to take the palestinians in it is equally a fact that the Israelis have not let them back into Israel. I dont think it is possible to consider the Arab states to be the sole cause as you seem to be implying. That many if not most refugee crises have been resolved by the state where those refugees fled to giving them asylum and a right to live there that does not mean that this is the way such situations should be resolved.
4. in no country in the world the rules for getting a citizenship apply for the descendents of a refugee since the beginning of time. The right of return- if ever given – should be given only to those who were expelled and their children. Maybe even second generation. But in no country a fifth or sixth generation of a refugee deserve citizenship.
I think this is wrong - a lot of countries accept nationality by Jus Sanguinis. In germany this includes "refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person." if that person was in its 1937 borders. In Italy meanwhile there is no limit on generations by blood so long as the ancestor who was born in the Italian territories died after 1861 - this would then likely include fifth or sixth generations - I cant see how it would matter if they were refugees.
42 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
This does not actually effect the Palestinians - surely it is in their interest to have a streight swap as it would not be them paying the compensation to the Israelis.
it doesn't effect the palestinianes directly but still- their so called brothers (since the Arab world sees itself as one big happy family)- the ones that are so enthusiastic to get rid of them and send them back to israel should know it.. it's only an argumant that were refugees from both sides.. and 60 years after, plus couple of milions of refugees agter it is not possible for a country with population of 7 million to accept another 7 million , only those with no education or proffesion.. it will be a suicide.
Does being forced out by invading arabs somehow make them less worthy of reclaiming their homes?
thats the point.. they were not forced out.. eating food because your mom asks you to doesn't mean she forces you to.. their own leaders asked them to leave their lands.. it isn't usage of force..
While it is undeniable that countries like Jordan have to take some of the blame for not being willing to take the palestinians in it is equally a fact that the Israelis have not let them back into Israel. I dont think it is possible to consider the Arab states to be the sole cause as you seem to be implying. That many if not most refugee crises have been resolved by the state where those refugees fled to giving them asylum and a right to live there that does not mean that this is the way such situations should be resolved.
it is not the optimal way such a situation should be resolved but, hey.. we don't live in an optimal world... I think you are unaware to the treatment palestinians get in all arab countries except Iraq..lets say lebanon- they aren't allowed to live anywhere else except refugee camps, to get education in lebanoni facilities and etc.. it's the same with other countries... israel is partiely blame for causing the refugee situation, but yes.. the hosting countries are to blame for what happened in the next 60 years...
I think this is wrong - a lot of countries accept nationality by Jus Sanguinis. In germany this includes "refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person." if that person was in its 1937 borders. In Italy meanwhile there is no limit on generations by blood so long as the ancestor who was born in the Italian territories died after 1861 - this would then likely include fifth or sixth generations - I cant see how it would matter if they were refugees.
about this issue- well the examples you give are good.. but still, can you imagine italy getting 40-50 million people, let's say from Africa, only because they have italian blood in them ..? and all those people are without any education\proffesion and will just be a burden on the tex-payers? also italy and germany are aware by doing so that there is a small number of descendants that could return...this comparison of palestiniane refugees to italians or other advanced countries is unproportional..
41 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
it is not the optimal way such a situation should be resolved but, hey.. we don't live in an optimal world... I think you are unaware to the treatment palestinians get in all arab countries except Iraq..lets say lebanon- they aren't allowed to live anywhere else except refugee camps, to get education in lebanoni facilities and etc.. it's the same with other countries... israel is partiely blame for causing the refugee situation, but yes.. the hosting countries are to blame for what happened in the next 60 years...
I dont understand how you can claim that israel is not to blame here? Obviously it would be great if Israel's neighbours felt able to take in millions of refugees but obviously they dont. Yes they have perpetuated the crisis by net letting the refugees become citizens but this makes no difference to the cause which is quite simply that their native land is in Israel which is refusing to let them back in.
So if England expelled all the Scots from scotland and they set up refugee camps in Ireland if England continued to refuse to let the Scots back into scotland for 50 years and Ireland refused them nationality it would somehow be the fault of the Irish that these people are still refugees?
41 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The timing might not be long enough but eventually they should accept they no longer belong in the land they once lived in. The conditions in which they live does not really matter as what matters is where they live. There have been many peoples who have been displaced throughout history and have eventually made new homes elsewhere.
41 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
o.k.. let's say I agree with you for the sake of argument, and it is Israel's fault..
do you really can imagine a situation in which a country with population of 7 million, while already a big part( such as religious Jews and israeli-arabs) of those 7 millions are a burden on the few tax- payers will get as citizens another 4-6 millions which are without any education or profession, and will certainly be a huge burden..?
it is just not practical...
no country can exist with only 10% of tax-payers...
and that's just the dry facts.. with no mention to the possibility that there will be a civil war in such a case between Jews and Arabs within Israel..
41 weeks 3 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
it doesn't effect the palestinianes directly but still- their so called brothers (since the Arab world sees itself as one big happy family)- the ones that are so enthusiastic to get rid of them and send them back to israel should know it.. it's only an argumant that were refugees from both sides.. and 60 years after, plus couple of milions of refugees agter it is not possible for a country with population of 7 million to accept another 7 million , only those with no education or proffesion.. it will be a suicide.
Isn't 7 million an overestimate; even UNRWA only says 5 million. Though of course I guess many more would be likely to try to claim the right... who would not go after free land/money/whatever is offered?
What is now Jordan's population in 1946 was 433,000, so assuming a reasonable number of the 700,000 or so refugees went to Jordan it is likely that proportionally the numbers were pretty similar.
thats the point.. they were not forced out.. eating food because your mom asks you to doesn't mean she forces you to.. their own leaders asked them to leave their lands.. it isn't usage of force..
This is essentially saying that when there is a flood those who leave when the authorities tell them to are not forced out of their homes by the flood. For most people it is sensible to move when told that there is an invading army on the way.
it is not the optimal way such a situation should be resolved but, hey.. we don't live in an optimal world... I think you are unaware to the treatment palestinians get in all arab countries except Iraq..lets say lebanon- they aren't allowed to live anywhere else except refugee camps, to get education in lebanoni facilities and etc.. it's the same with other countries... israel is partiely blame for causing the refugee situation, but yes.. the hosting countries are to blame for what happened in the next 60 years...
As appalling as it may be treatment of someone cant help us identify a cuase. Highlighting poor treatment of palesitians by Arab countries simply makes those countries guilty of different crimes rather than absolving Israel. "they aren't allowed to live anywhere else except refugee camps, to get education in lebanoni facilities and etc.. it's the same with other countries..." this sounds remarkably similar to the situation in palestine! Israel has treates a small number who remained within Israel's 67 borders pretty well (could be better mind) but certainly not those in the West Bank and Gaza. But the treatment of the palestinians in palestine as in Jordan really have very little impact on this debate except for being a factor in encouraging the Palestinians to maintain the dream of being able to return. If Israel helped build a prosperous West Bank then perhaps the palestinians in the refugee camps would dream of returning there instead!
but still, can you imagine italy getting 40-50 million people, let's say from Africa, only because they have italian blood in them ..?
Not quite as big and not quite the same but the closest I can come up with is Germany after WWII East Germany took in more than 4 million germans expelled from the rest of Eastern Europe who then made up 25% of the population of the country. Though in some areas such as Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern they made up more that 40% of the population. Sorry used wikipedia for this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)#Post-war_Germany_and_Austria
It is however hard to imagin that everyone would choose to return if given the choice, especially if some form of compensation was given if they stay where they are. I think it unlikely that all 7million you mention would actually want to return to Israel. And this is even assuming that the negotiated right of return would be for every palestinian which seems unlikely.
A survey in 2003 showed that only 10% of Palestinians would want to live in Israel with most wanting to live in any resulting Palestinian state instead. http://middleeastwindow.com/node/81
41 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Isn't 7 million an overestimate; even UNRWA only says 5 million. Though of course I guess many more would be likely to try to claim the right... who would not go after free land/money/whatever is offered?
What is now Jordan's population in 1946 was 433,000, so assuming a reasonable number of the 700,000 or so refugees went to Jordan it is likely that proportionally the numbers were pretty similar.
o.k.. then 5 million, my mistake.. still a huge number..
Jordan until 1946 was a land of nomads- had only (or mostly) 'baduins'- arab tribes that wander all over the desert and those palestinians migrated to the north of Jordan where there was no living soul before 1946... , even today Jordan is composed from palestinians in the north and Baduins in the south..
another thing -jordan's size is 89,342 kms, while israel's is 20,770, it is 5 times smaller with density of 321 people per km^2 compare to Jordan's 5 per km^2 during 1946... adding another 5 million would make it 625 per km^2..that's like 15th most crowded in the world
my point is that you can't compare a modern, crowded, civilized country to a nomad's land.
This is essentially saying that when there is a flood those who leave when the authorities tell them to are not forced out of their homes by the flood. For most people it is sensible to move when told that there is an invading army on the way.
I get your point, and altough there is some resemblance, a possible flood and a possible slaugther of jews is not quite the same thing. in case of a flood they would certienly get hurt while here they were promised by the jews there will be no harm to them fron the jewish forces.. (there were other cases where the palistinians were forced out)
there is a phrase in my language- " holding the stick from it's both ends" or " eating the cake and leaving it un-touched"..
you cannot leave a place, even though the local residents bag you to stay, because a military is coming to slaugther the locals for you, and then, if they failed doing so , just to return as nothing happened.. they had a choice- to listen to the arab leaders or to the local jewish leaders.. they made a mistake, and that's one of life's facts- you pay for mistakes..
As appalling as it may be treatment of someone cant help us identify a cuase. Highlighting poor treatment of palesitians by Arab countries simply makes those countries guilty of different crimes rather than absolving Israel. "they aren't allowed to live anywhere else except refugee camps, to get education in lebanoni facilities and etc.. it's the same with other countries..." this sounds remarkably similar to the situation in palestine! Israel has treates a small number who remained within Israel's 67 borders pretty well (could be better mind) but certainly not those in the West Bank and Gaza. But the treatment of the palestinians in palestine as in Jordan really have very little impact on this debate except for being a factor in encouraging the Palestinians to maintain the dream of being able to return. If Israel helped build a prosperous West Bank then perhaps the palestinians in the refugee camps would dream of returning there instead!
can you show me one arab prosperous country that isn't depended on oil or gas?
there isn't one.. how do you expect isarel to do the imposible?
to make a prosperous country there need to be women rights, minority rights, minimum corroption,infrastructure and mainly a different set of national priorities than the one's arab society have nowadays.
Not quite as big and not quite the same but the closest I can come up with is Germany after WWII East Germany took in more than 4 million germans expelled from the rest of Eastern Europe who then made up 25% of the population of the country. Though in some areas such as Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern they made up more that 40% of the population. Sorry used wikipedia for this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)#Post-war_Germany_and_Austria
It is however hard to imagin that everyone would choose to return if given the choice, especially if some form of compensation was given if they stay where they are. I think it unlikely that all 7million you mention would actually want to return to Israel. And this is even assuming that the negotiated right of return would be for every palestinian which seems unlikely.
A survey in 2003 showed that only 10% of Palestinians would want to live in Israel with most wanting to live in any resulting Palestinian state instead. http://middleeastwindow.com/node/81
as you said- "Not quite as big and not quite the same " - you cannot compare a ruined country with whole cities empty after the war and other cities with no house standing in them, to israel of nowadyas.. in both examples you gave there was a huge space that could be filled by imigrants without braking any status-qou, but that's no the case with isarel.
I think it is a very not realistic prediction (10%)... if you were a palistinian living i a refugee camp in syria\lebanon\jordan, and you were offered to move to a country with infrastructure, social care, equal rights (and there are- I can tell you all about it), affirmative action for minorities such as arabs, good education system and etc.. would you stay in your refugee camp or move to this place
eventualy i think they will have to realize that the dream of returning to their old home is just a dream, and they better live in the real world and not in dreams. I don't see any way Israel would accept more than 300,000-400,000 people in the most optimal prediction...
41 weeks 3 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Jordan until 1946 was a land of nomads- had only (or mostly) 'baduins'- arab tribes that wander all over the desert and those palestinians migrated to the north of Jordan where there was no living soul before 1946... , even today Jordan is composed from palestinians in the north and Baduins in the south..
another thing -jordan's size is 89,342 kms, while israel's is 20,770, it is 5 times smaller with density of 321 people per km^2 compare to Jordan's 5 per km^2 during 1946... adding another 5 million would make it 625 per km^2..that's like 15th most crowded in the world
my point is that you can't compare a modern, crowded, civilized country to a nomad's land.
A rich modern country should be in a much better position to take in refugees than a country of nomads. Jordan is pretty much desert compared to which Israel is blessed! I think the size issue is overblown - most of the world's richest countries are also among the world's most densely populated e.g. Taiwan, Singapore, Japan. If anything being small is an advantage as it means good effective transport links.
The resource that would be most stretched is water - and since it is a common resource it will be stretched regardless of whether refugees stay in Jordan, go to Palestine or go to Israel. If anything they will be better off in Israel/palestine as that is where most of the limited rain falls so there would be less loss during transportation.
here they were promised by the jews there will be no harm to them fron the jewish forces.. (there were other cases where the palistinians were forced out)
you cannot leave a place, even though the local residents bag you to stay, because a military is coming to slaugther the locals for you, and then, if they failed doing so , just to return as nothing happened.. they had a choice- to listen to the arab leaders or to the local jewish leaders.. they made a mistake, and that's one of life's facts- you pay for mistakes..
You cant really blame someone for running from an invasion especially with the 2nd WW and its genocides so close - would the Israeli's stick around if the Arabs were invading and told by israeli arabs that they would not be killed?
can you show me one arab prosperous country that isn't depended on oil or gas?
there isn't one.. how do you expect isarel to do the imposible?
Nope - but I dont see the relevance; has Israel tried?
as you said- "Not quite as big and not quite the same " - you cannot compare a ruined country with whole cities empty after the war and other cities with no house standing in them, to israel of nowadyas.. in both examples you gave there was a huge space that could be filled by imigrants without braking any status-qou, but that's no the case with isarel.
Exactly; germany was in by far the worse position. Again you talk about population densities which I think is irrelevant... especially as the current palestinian population density is almost twice as high at 689 per sq km by your logic perhaps they would do better if they are allowed to spread out a bit!
I think it is a very not realistic prediction (10%)... if you were a palistinian living i a refugee camp in syria\lebanon\jordan, and you were offered to move to a country with infrastructure, social care, equal rights (and there are- I can tell you all about it), affirmative action for minorities such as arabs, good education system and etc.. would you stay in your refugee camp or move to this place
I personally would choose Israel over Palestine, but then I am not Palestinain. Find an opinion poll that contradicts mine so some actual evidence of what they think rather than us saying what we would do which is really not very relevant!
eventualy i think they will have to realize that the dream of returning to their old home is just a dream, and they better live in the real world and not in dreams. I don't see any way Israel would accept more than 300,000-400,000 people in the most optimal prediction...
Something we agree on! I dont think Israel is likely to accept large numbers of palestinains either unless they are given a very good reason to do so. We are assuming that any return is in the context of a settlement (cant see Israel just throwing away a card) so ultimately it will be whatever number is agreed.
41 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
A rich modern country should be in a much better position to take in refugees than a country of nomads. Jordan is pretty much desert compared to which Israel is blessed! I think the size issue is overblown - most of the world's richest countries are also among the world's most densely populated e.g. Taiwan, Singapore, Japan. If anything being small is an advantage as it means good effective transport links.
The resource that would be most stretched is water - and since it is a common resource it will be stretched regardless of whether refugees stay in Jordan, go to Palestine or go to Israel. If anything they will be better off in Israel/palestine as that is where most of the limited rain falls so there would be less loss during transportation.
The point you made about the water resource- can you elaborate on this matter?
Another thing, Israel is not rich at all.
If anything, it is a poor country- it has the lowest grades in all criteria between all the OECD countries.
(Israel is maybe blessed compare to it's neighbors, but that's not the issue, because the fact they are stuck in the midevil religious times isn't Israel's fault.)
Any way Israel got plenty of domestic problems - it has one of the worst percentages of taxpayers/total population ratios in the world. Almost 30% population are extreme religious Jews that don't work or have any income what so ever. Another 20% are Arabs that don't allow their women to work, and there is a high percentage of unemployment within the men as well.
So all the burden of the taxes is falling on 30% secular Jews, and those 30% can't hold it anymore.. Adding some more people that will rely on social care will collapse the country.
You cant really blame someone for running from an invasion especially with the 2nd WW and its genocides so close - would the Israeli's stick around if the Arabs were invading and told by israeli arabs that they would not be killed?
That's a funny point you made here-
That's exactly what the Israelis did (without the part of Arabs asking them to stay.. wouldn't that be a dream).
When all the Arab countries attacked Israel a day after it was "born", Israel had no chance- (at the first stages of the war)
It was 5 well trained (by the British and French) armies against holocaust survivors with no military background, furthermore it was 40 tanks against 0 tanks, 74 fighters (planes) against 0 planes, and it goes on and on..
But all Israelis stayed and fought even though they knew (as you said- after the ww2 genocide) what fate is expecting them. no one really thought Israel will win... but they stayed.
so yes, the Arabs could have stayed here and not to run way, so I blame them. .
Nope - but I dont see the relevance; has Israel tried?
Israel is doing more then trying.. it has plenty of agriculture/academic/scientific projects with Palestine and Jordan, in which Israel contribute its knowledge.. there could be much more if both Palestine and Jordan wouldn't refuse many times because some people don't want anything to do with Israel even if it is trying to help them. But as I said before Israel is not Switzerland- it has plenty of domestic problems that should be resolved before shifting it's resources on other countries..
Exactly; germany was in by far the worse position. Again you talk about population densities which I think is irrelevant... especially as the current palestinian population density is almost twice as high at 689 per sq km by your logic perhaps they would do better if they are allowed to spread out a bit!
Again- you mix things up. Israel is not to blame for the fact that each Palestinian family brings 12 children to the world without the means to support them. the 1967 lines were decided as the border by the u.n, and eventually it will be with some moderate changes.. but Israel is a small country- it cannot accept such an amount as there are Palestinian refugees.
but you are correct, I take back the density argument...
I personally would choose Israel over Palestine, but then I am not Palestinain. Find an opinion poll that contradicts mine so some actual evidence of what they think rather than us saying what we would do which is really not very relevant!
Come on.. You know I will never find one.. For a Palestinian to say he would live in Israel rather than Palestine is equal to treason in their current mentality... but I can give you small examples-
1. the fact the Hamas leader (the organization that don't recognize israel as a country) , Hanya, sends his brother in law , after he had a heart attack to Israeli hospitals , treated by Israeli Jews, while he was offered to take him to the best Egyptian\Jordanian hospitals...
2. You won't find any Arab migration from Israel.. So apparently it is not such a bad place for an arab to live in..
Those things mean something- after all their hate to Israel, they rather live here than in their current countries..
40 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
AL gave (in his post below) in some of my arguments much better answers, since my english isn't as good as his..
40 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
2. All the historians (Historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi ) that say that Arabs were mostly forcefully expelled belong to a certain school called "the new historians". There have been many half-truths and misleading information within their research, as can be read in – [Fabricating Israeli history: the 'new historians'/ Ephraim Karsh. second edition. London: F. Cass, 2000], therefore all the numbers given by Morris and others should be checked before considering them as a fact.
Feel free to suggest alternative figues as an improvement - it is generally best to have such historical figures as a range between the various estimates because the true numbers are never really settled!
42 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
well, as you said... the true numbers are never really settled... but as an argumant it should be knowen that all the numbers the "pro-return" group gave are not facts, and in many cases are totaly incorect
I can give as example - the case of the village near jerusalem that was mentioned before.. the number of palestinians that died there is incorrect, it should be according to this book much lower.. not 100-120 but 20 residents.. the rest 60 or so (from a total of 80) were arab fighters that died in battle and are not victims in any way...
any way I'm just saying it from memory ,I don't have the book next to me..
41 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
We can wait until someone digs them up - on an issue like this I am sure someone will eventually. I should also point out that this is the job of the opposition side in this debate - to dispute props figures and reasoning rather than prop to provide a lower figure.
41 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
i must say that if i was adjudicating this debate i would deduct points from gov for being horribly moddled in this preposul.Are you suggesting that:1) Israel monetarily compensate palestinies who lost thier homes on 1948?
2) Israel allow only palestiniens who lived in israel to gain Israeli (?) citisenship as well as a return of their lost property
or
3) Israel allow palestiniens who lived in israel and thier prodgeny to gain Israeli (?) citisenship as well as a return of their lost property
?
As i have never heared of any mainstream palestinien group willing to accept either 1 or 2 i will assume that we are debating 3
now for my points:1) it has been 64 years seince 1948, the vast majority of the original Palistinian refugies have passed away, the population we are debating is mostly their decendents.implaying that israel bears a higher burden of providing this people with citizentship then the countries in which they were born is ludicres as it would implay that Jus sanguinis superceeds Jus soli, which ludicres. the countries who bare the prime responcibility for providing this people with citizenship are the countries where they were born.
2) the cost both social, political and economical laid on the corrent citizens of israel is far to harsh to be deemed justified
a)economicly- these 5 million most live in countries that denay them both civil and economic rights such as syria, lebanon or UAE. this means that vast majurity will choose to move to israel. this people are extremely poor, both in phisical and human capital, and would in effect half israels GDP per capita, downgrading it from a developed coutry back into a developing coutnry. the israelies will be forced to accept an extream drop in their standart of living and goverment services as the same amount of taxes would have to cover almost double the population (never mind that this new population will require far more resorces in education, healthcare, and housing....)
b) and c) - i am tired and going to sleep i will continue this tomarow....
41 weeks 19 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
i must say that if i was adjudicating this debate i would deduct points from gov for being horribly moddled in this preposul.Are you suggesting that:1) Israel monetarily compensate palestinies who lost thier homes on 1948?
2) Israel allow only palestiniens who lived in israel to gain Israeli (?) citisenship as well as a return of their lost property
or
3) Israel allow palestiniens who lived in israel and thier prodgeny to gain Israeli (?) citisenship as well as a return of their lost property
?
None of the above... it is meant to be an analysis debate about the principles and issues behind the idea of the right of return not a debate on policy.
It seemed more sensible to have a debate that is a broad as possible on the issue rather than narrowing things down to a particular policy. This is particularly the case when there is no set proposal for the right of return (unlike the idea of the two state solution in general). I personally am not aware of any concrete proposals that have been put forward in negotiations and are taken seriously (and certainly not at the moment when there is not much in the way of negotiations) but then I dont really follow the issue.
Ultimately if there is a solution to such issues that is satisfactory to both sides it will probably require a leap of imagination so is quite likely to be different from any proposal we may come up with. For example you mention 'Israeli citizenship' in both the options you give for moving to Israel. This seems to be rather limiting and a solution is likely to need to come up with something else (unless Israel is willing to give up its Jewish identity) so perhaps more likely would be something along the lines of they become Palestinian citizens within Israel while any remaining settlers become Israeli citizens within Palestine or some kind of non-territorial sovereignty (currently pretty much an oxymoron).
40 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Why should they. Israel is the Israelties home that they werre kicked out of. Then when the British promised them that they could have thier home back , if they provided tghem with resources for WW2, and the British gave it to them. Even thought they didn't have proper right to own it in the first place. Ata the same time British offered the Arabs (a.ka Turks) that if they helped them fight against Britain's enemies inWW2 that they will recieve Palestine.
Sadly, for the Arabs, Britain did not give them Palestine. They gave them to the Jews which later caused the Arabs to become Islamites (Islamites mean people who want all Muslims to live in one powerful nation following all ancient Muslim laws).
Overall I conclude that Israel SHOULD NOT recognise Palestinian right to return because of the fact that the Palestinians didn't own the land ( or it wasn't given to them) and that also the Israelties were gven Caanan by the British but more imprtantly they have a archeological refernce that has been in this world (translated into many different languages) which has said that their God has given the land to them and that they have been living in the land longer than the palestinians have been living in the land.
34 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
... WW2...
First world war not second - as you yourself mention the British had the rather silly policy of promising both sides so Britains policies cant really be a justification for either.
Sadly, for the Arabs, Britain did not give them Palestine.
Difficult to say that Britain gave it to either side; Britain wanted partition and anyway was essentially kicked out and ran tail between legs. This however really should not make difference to a 'right of return'.
They gave them to the Jews which later caused the Arabs to become Islamites (Islamites mean people who want all Muslims to live in one powerful nation following all ancient Muslim laws).
I dont see the relevance; presumably anyone who wanted to exercise a right of return and live in Israel almost by definition does not want all Muslims to live in one nation. Sure some might be wanting to go and live in Israel to subvert it but most are probably mostly intersted in the economy and stability.
Overall I conclude that Israel SHOULD NOT recognise Palestinian right to return because of the fact that the Palestinians didn't own the land ( or it wasn't given to them) and that also the Israelties were gven Caanan by the British but more imprtantly they have a archeological refernce that has been in this world (translated into many different languages) which has said that their God has given the land to them and that they have been living in the land longer than the palestinians have been living in the land.
I dont see how you can deny that some palestinians did for centuries own land and property in what is now Israel, the question is whether a couple of generations later they still have the right to return to it if they wish. Whether the land was given by God to Israel seems to make little difference here as the land would still be controled by Israel it would simply have some Palestinian citizens.
34 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Ben Rhodes, President Barak Obama's chief foreign policy speechwriter, believes that a "Jewish right of return" should be on the table as part of the peace process. The debate mentiones the Jewish right of return (points against 'No real 'right of return' exists in international law) in the context of providing precedent against a right of return however if it was put on the table then presumably this would no longer be the case. Can anyone think of a better example for precedent against a right to return?
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/24/white_house_jewish_re...