Israel's unfair 'law of return'

[Violet_Crumble]

While British Jews are offered property in the West Bank, Palestinian refugees are still denied the right to return.

Abe Hayeem
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 11 March 2010 14.00 GMT

The yearly drive to encourage British Jews to emigrate to Israel culminated last weekend in the Israel Property Exhibition in a north London synagogue. "Make your dream come true with your own home or investment in Israel," it urged. Although most of the property for sale is in Israel itself, some is in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Jewish Agency also placed ads in Jewish News and the Jewish Chronicle, which last month included a glossy pamphlet with programmes to "ease and speed up the process of immigration". Free flights and citizenship within 24 hours were on offer, together with generous financial and social benefits and tax exemptions.

The "community aliyah programme" shown in the pamphlet calls on UK Jews to "start a new life in a vibrant Israeli city" but of these, only three – Haifa, Modiin and Yad Binyamin – are within Israel proper. The other five are Jerusalem (evidently including the illegally annexed eastern part); Ariel, "located in the centre of Israel" (sic); Maaleh Adumim; Efrat (the capital of Gush Etzion); and the Gush Etzion bloc as a whole, which spreads south of Jerusalem into the heart of the West Bank. On YouTube, a Jewish Agency video shows a British family leaving their house in the suburbs, piling into their car and setting the sat-nav to "Home", eventually being raucously welcomed to Israel.

This drive to increase Jewish emigration has accelerated in recent years. One organisations, Nefesh B'Nefesh ("Soul by Soul"), says its core mission "is to revitalise aliyah and to substantially increase the number of future olim by removing the financial, professional and logistical obstacles that prevent many individuals from actualising their dreams". It adds: "We aim to educate and inspire the Jews of the diaspora as to the centrality of the Jewish state to the Jewish people and its desirability as a Jewish home."

The Jewish Agency is part of the parent World Zionist Organisation. It promotes and manages aliyah to Israel, purchases land in Israel and the West Bank through the Jewish National Fund, and plays a key role in establishing and funding the settlements there. The pamphlet shows the increasing aliyah figures from the UK (853 in 2009, a 37% increase from 2008). In effect, UK citizens are being encouraged to live in Israel and also in illegally-occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, whose settlements have been established and enlarged in direct violation of international law.

Although Israel is most keen to welcome Anglo-Saxon Jews from the US and UK, Jews from "lost tribes" such as the Bnei Menashe (Children of Menasseh) in India have also been fast-tracked in to subvert the settlement freeze. Even Peruvian Indians were brought in (provided they converted immediately to Judaism) and sent to West Bank settlements. Jewish people throughout the world have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel's "law of return", though many in the US, UK and Australia now are rejecting this right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/11/israel-return-jews-palestinians

[Ozymanithrax]

1. So are they refusing to let Palastinain Jews return?

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Huh? Who's 'they' and what's it got to do with the OP? n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

5. The Law of Return was created to give Jews a homeland.

It was created because, historically, Jews have been booted out of nations whenever some country decided it wanted what they had. It was only after the French Revoltuion that Jews were even recognized as citizens in some of the countries that they had lived in for centuries.

The right of return has nothing to do with the Palastinians, who should be compensated for their loss or allowed to return to the West Bank or Gaza.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'm still none the wiser as to who 'they' are or what it has to do with the OP...

Sorry, but I find it wrong that some American who's got no family or friends in Israel can up and move there, yet a Palestinian still holding keys to their family's home in Jerusalem not only had their property taken by Israel's citizenship laws, but isn't allowed to return to Israel...

on edit: Also, the Israeli govt encourages Jewish immigrants to Israel to settle in the West Bank, which of course isn't part of Israel...

[Shaktimaan]

38. Those are really two different issues though.

The Jewish right of return and the Palestinian nakba don't have anything to do with one another. Jews aren't allowed to emigrate because they have been determined to have a greater "right" to the land than a Palestinian does. It is not an either/or situation.

The fact is that there is plenty that is unfair about the Mid East situation, the Palestinians and the Jews. If you look at any single situation on an individual level it is very likely that you will have an example of something unfair to look at. But there is really no way to "fix" the situation as to make it fair to everyone. Justice is entirely relative. And we have to look at it on both the micro and macro levels. Meaning we have to consider what is "fair" to not just individual people, but to nations as a whole.

Ideally, the right of return would make sense and be fair, if there was a Palestinian state. Palestinians would have the ability to emigrate to the Palestinian state, (while Jews who lost their land there would not.) And vice versa. That's how this is supposed to work.

As things stand now, Israel has had to accept all of the Jews from the entire Arab world when they were expelled. Obviously this wasn't the Palestinians' fault, nor are they being punished for it. In a fair world those Arab states would use the resources taken from their Jewish citizens and use them to help the Palestinian refugees. This isn't what happened. Ignoring the issue of near constant aggression between the Israelis and Palestinians, is it really "fair" to expect Israel alone to bear the brunt of accepting ALL of the refugees from the conflict?

For that matter, is it fair that only one state exists to house all of the Jews, while there are 22 separate Arab states? Much is made of the fact that the Palestinians have a distinct culture from the Jordanians. That Jordan is NOT Palestine and the two form distinct nations. Fair enough. I happen to agree. But just how distinct are these nations? Distinct enough that it is absurd to suggest that they share a state? Are they more distinct than all of the different sorts of Jews who inhabit Israel? The Askenazi, the Sephardim, the Ethiopians? No, of course not.

Now I'm exaggerating my opinion here to make a point. That there are many issues we could point to in this conflict that are less than fair for many of the people involved. But in this case you are drawing a false parallel between two completely separate issues. Right of return for the Jews to Israel isn't inherently unfair. Lots of countries have similar policies. And nothing about it is any more unethical than the fact that many nations are based on ethnic distinctions.

The Palestinian refugee problem is a totally different issue. And regardless of whether it should be solved by granting them ROR to Israel it has nothing to do with Israel's policy of ROR regarding Jewish people. I understand why it appears that the two are diametrically opposed. But in reality one doesn't influence the other at all. You may as well reverse it and say, "Back in the 60's how was it fair for Jordan to grant citizenship to relatives of Palestinian refugees (who may not even necessarily be refugees themselves) while Jews who lived in East Jerusalem for decades weren't allowed to return?" Was it unfair to the Jews who lost their homes. Undeniably. Was it wrong for Jordan to expel them? Almost certainly. Does that then mean that Jordan shouldn't have allowed Arafat (for example) to emigrate? Of course not, Jordan had the right to let whomever it wanted in the country.

And while most of the Palestinians who received Jordanian citizenship were refugees, most of the Jews who emigrated to Israel were refugees as well. Yes, an American Jew can decide to move to Israel and he'll have preferential status for immigration. But the vast majority of the people who benefited from the Jewish ROR were truly in need of it.

Ethnic cleansing occurred on both sides of Israel's border. But this fact should not then permanently inform Israel's immigration policy regarding Jews. The fact that the conflict between Jews and Arabs is still unresolved is really just a kind of real-politic icing on the cake. While obviously influencing the reality of any immigration policy, it doesn't have much of anything to do with Israel's ROR for Jews, which is its right to choose regardless of the details of the conflict at large.

[kayecy]

39. I am trying to see how this "... isn't inherently unfair".......

"Right of return for the Jews to Israel isn't inherently unfair. Lots of countries have similar policies."

1. I am trying to see how this "...isn't inherently unfair" or even racist....Can you help me by giving an example of another democratic state with a 20% ethnic minority which selectively only allows immigration from members of its majority ethnic group?

2. Re the right-of-return of Palestinians... I presume you would agree that any Israeli objecting to Palestinians having this right should logically also object to any Israeli setting up home beyond the Green Line?.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Well...

1. I don't know of ANY state that only approves immigration for members of its majority ethnic group, including Israel. Israel offers preferential immigration status to Jewish people. Their approval is all but guaranteed, however non-Jews are also allowed to immigrate. They just don't have a RIGHT of return; they have to apply through normal channels.

Actually, that's not quite true. Plenty of non-Jews qualify for right of return as well. Spouses of Jews, people with a Jewish relative, (I believe you must be 25% Jewish to qualify for ROR, which actually isn't enough to qualify as Jewish), etc. This may not seem like a big deal, but consider that something like 50 or 60% of Israel's immigrants in recent years were non-Jews. (I don't remember the exact percentage but it was around there.)

2. Well, generally speaking I'm against the settlements, period. But I do think there's a difference between awarding a RIGHT of return and merely allowing return in some instances. For example, let's pretend that in 1967 Jordan didn't lose the West Bank and in fact gained some land that was originally owned by Palestinians. If Arabs then moved back onto that land and rebuilt their town there then I wouldn't decry that. Just as I don't decry Israel's settling of some areas of Jerusalem, like the Jewish Quarter.

But I'm talking about very specific instances there. 99% of the time I would agree with you. The only problem is that the Green Line isn't a border yet and Palestine isn't an independent nation yet, with the ability to make its own immigration policies.

[kayecy]

41. I can't let you get away with that fudge!......

I don't know of ANY state that only approves immigration for members of its majority ethnic group, including Israel.

1. You would make a fine lawyer!....Let me try again...Do you know of any state that bans any immigration, if the potential immigrant belongs to its minority ethnic group (in Israel's case, even members whose grandfathers used to live in Israeli villages),and yet gives almost automatic approval to members of its majority ethnic group?

Looks like straight racism to me.

If Arabs then moved back onto that land and rebuilt their town there then I wouldn't decry that. Just as I don't decry Israel's settling of some areas of Jerusalem, like the Jewish Quarter.

But you (or at least, the majority of Israelis) do decry any Palestinian moving back to Palestinian-owned land in Israel?....Where is the fairness in that?

I agree about the Green-line not being a border....What are the internationally accepted borders of Israel?

[Shaktimaan]

42. It was hardly a fudge.

I wasn't being cagey. I've met plenty of people who believed that Israel does indeed ban all ethnicities aside from Jews from immigrating. That said, Israel's minority ethnic group, Arabs, are not barred from immigrating either. In fact, under certain situations they also have preferred status. Specifically Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have the option of applying for fast-tracked citizenship.

One area that your accusation carries some weight is regarding marriages between citizen and non-citizen Palestinians. Just recently automatic citizenship was barred for non-Israeli Palestinians who applied for citizenship by marrying an Israeli Arab. But still, even in this case it doesn't have anything to do with racism. It has to do with the same reason that Palestinians who want to return to land they left during the nakba are not allowed. It is an issue of nationality, not race. The fact is that the Jews and Palestinians have been in conflict for over 60 years. To ignore this critical fact so you can chalk up immigration restrictions to racism is dishonest.

It is worth mentioning that the law restricting Palestinian immigration even in the case of marriage is a very recent ruling. It's a direct result of the increased violence during the past few years. If it was an issue of race then surely it would have been addressed decades ago. Nevertheless, no one expects it to be a permanent law. (That said, since the law discriminates against citizens of Israel it is most certainly discriminatory, and very wrong.)

But you (or at least, the majority of Israelis) do decry any Palestinian moving back to Palestinian-owned land in Israel?....Where is the fairness in that?

It's not fair at all. Nor is it fair that Jews are barred from returning to the land they were expelled from in Arab countries. Nor is it fair that it is against the law to sell any land to Israelis in Palestinian controlled Palestine. None of this is "fair," a point I made in my original post.

The difference regarding East Jerusalem, as I see it, is that EJ is disputed territory which doesn't legally belong to either state at this point. When Jordan controlled it Arabs were moved in. Now that Israel controls it Jews are moving in. The big difference between then and now is that the minority ethnicity is not being expelled and are in fact being offered citizenship should they desire it.

I agree about the Green-line not being a border....What are the internationally accepted borders of Israel?

Israel's border vis-a-vis Palestine isn't defined at this point. There is no internationally accepted border, which is why very few nations allow their embassy to be in Jerusalem, even though it's Israel's designated capitol. Since all of Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, until all of the negotiations are worked out most nations don't consider it (even east Jerusalem) to be an official part of Israel.

[kayecy]

44. Fudge, dodge, obfustication or simply pretending the Law of Return doesn't refer only to Jews.......

That said, Israel's minority ethnic group, Arabs, are not barred from immigrating either. In fact, under certain situations they also have preferred status.

Law of Return 5710-1950, first paragraph:
"Right of aliyah** 1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh**."

Show me which part of the Israeli constitution gives the same Right-of-return to Arabs .....If there is no such provision then Israel is practising racial descrimination.....The fact that special excemption is made for some is neither here nor there.

It is an issue of nationality, not race.

The Law of Return has nothing to do with nationality...The Law of Return does not mention the nationality of Jews, simply that they must be Jews....I repeat, can you show me another democracy that discriminates in the same way against a 20% ethnic minority?

The fact is that the Jews and Palestinians have been in conflict for over 60 years. To ignore this critical fact so you can chalk up immigration restrictions to racism is dishonest.

Dishonest?.....Independence was 62 years ago....Perhaps one of the reasons for the conflict was because the new state included such a racial law?

Israel's border vis-a-vis Palestine isn't defined at this point. There is no internationally accepted border.

So how do you decide where Israeli law applies?.....Israel says the territories are disputed but it has annexed East Jerusalem illegally.....Palestinians could equally claim that Israeli-controlled areas outside the UN 1947 partion plan borders are also disputed....In which case it seems logical they have the same right to build settlements there as Jews building settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.
.

[Shaktimaan]

58. You are still confusing the two issues.

There are two separate things we are discussing. The Law of Return for Jews to Israel. And the Right of Return that Palestinian refugees are demanding to return to Israel. Having the one does not imply that the other is an ethical necessity.

First off, no one is suggesting that Israel's Law of Return was intended for anyone but the Jews. In fact, that was the whole point of having Israel created in the first place... to function as a safe haven for people facing anti-semitism. To this end, of course the Jews receive special consideration. But to look at that special consideration as a form of racism is to turn its meaning on its head. It is the same kind of reasoning that falsely labels affirmative action as racism.

Most nations in the world are based on some form of ethnic association. And it is a well established piece of international law that nations offering special considerations to non-citizen members of their ethnicity should not be considered racist or discriminatory. This is especially true in the case of Israel, as the Law of Return exists for a reason that transcends the common rationale, that a bond exists within self-identified groups that extends beyond borders. In Israel's case the Law exists to ensure that members of this minority will have a modicum of protection despite a history of oppression.

And it is a critical point to note the rules of the law in question. If it were about racism and ethnic purity then the law would apply strictly to Jews. The fact is that it doesn't. The law applies not just to Jews but to anyone who would face anti-Jewish discrimination; anyone who could conceivably need protection from anti-semitism, including those who do not practice Judaism or even consider themselves Jewish. The Nazis exterminated anyone who was at least 25% Jewish, based on the idea that Judaism was a race. Israel uses the standard set by its enemies to ensure that anyone facing such discrimination should have a place to escape to. Obviously, it is not possible to offer this kind of protection to ANYONE if you're also offering it to EVERYONE.

The Law of Return has nothing to do with nationality...The Law of Return does not mention the nationality of Jews, simply that they must be Jews....I repeat, can you show me another democracy that discriminates in the same way against a 20% ethnic minority?

I wasn't discussing the Law of Return there. I was discussing the Palestinian desire to emigrate. Two separate things. Israel is not discriminating against their Arab minority by restricting Palestinian immigration. Arab Israelis are already citizens; they can't be discriminated against via immigration policies. Palestinians outside of Israel are restricted specifically because of the conflict... THAT is what I mean by nationality. Palestinians would not qualify under the Law of Return anyway unless they were Jewish. They would be able to apply to emigrate under the normal rules though, except they currently face additional restrictions. If it were not for the conflict then Palestinians would be able to emigrate under the same rules as any other non-Jew.

I have no problem with allowing the Palestinians a right of return. Many of the Palestinians who want a right of return were actually internally displaced. While their town may have been in what is now Israel, they were not expelled from their nation, as they still live in Palestine. This is what I think makes sense for all of the Palestinian refugees. They should be able to return to Palestine. Just not the part of it that has now become Israel.

To demand that the answer to a 100 years old ethnic conflict is to further mix the two people together is to argue against reason. And to argue that Israel should take measures which would render it an Arab majority state is to be truly unfair... that there should be 23 Arab states and zero for Jews. Which is really my main question for you. If to meet your definition of fairness Israel must cease to exist as the only Jewish state, rendering it essentially another Arab state, then is that truly fair in the broader sense?

Dishonest?.....Independence was 62 years ago....Perhaps one of the reasons for the conflict was because the new state included such a racial law?

Well, before independence, when there were a multitude of laws on the books that severely restricted Jewish immigration, how much land Jews could buy, and so on, (while none existed for the Arab Palestinians) it did nothing to stop the violence. Perhaps is the other Arab states did not go out of their way to discriminate against the Palestinians, keeping them as impoverished refugees, then the conflict would have dissipated long ago. Either way it's just speculation.

Palestinians could equally claim that Israeli-controlled areas outside the UN 1947 partion plan borders are also disputed....In which case it seems logical they have the same right to build settlements there as Jews building settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

Well, that was just my point earlier. I mean, isn't that exactly what Jordan did when it controlled East Jerusalem? It built settlements there and populated it with Palestinian Jordanians. And barring a treaty, Israel didn't have much legal basis to "own" the areas outside of the 47 partition plan, and if the Palestinians had controlled them then they would have built "settlements" there. In fact they spent decades trying to take back that land, asserting that it belonged to them. (Well, they said that about all of Israel, but you know what I mean.)

At this point though it's a little late to try for that. The Palestinians lack the means to retake the land they lost in the '48 war and besides, after 62 years of owning and operating them the areas belong to Israel now. It might be different if the Palestinians had a state this whole time and they had just been fighting over a border dispute. But the whole idea of even having a Palestinian state was only just recently resurrected. I doubt they're in a position to try and build settlements inside Israel's side of the green line, don't you?

[kayecy]

63. No confusion, they are two separate issues, but related..............

And it is a well established piece of international law that nations offering special considerations to non-citizen members of their ethnicity should not be considered racist or discriminatory…......

Article 2 of the1965 UN Convention on Eliminating Racial Discrimination states:
“Distinctions made on the basis of citizenship (that is, between citizens and non-citizens) are specifically excluded from the definition, as are affirmative action policies and other measures taken to redress imbalances and promote equality”

Do you really believe that the Law-of- return is designed to ‘redress imbalances’ or ‘promote equality’?...... I believe this clause was put into the UN declaration to permit US to pass affirmative action laws redressing white imbalances in education…...There is no suggestion that boosting an existing ethnic majority is in anyway acceptable.

Israel is not discriminating against their Arab minority by restricting Palestinian immigration. Arab Israelis are already citizens; they can't be discriminated against via immigration policies.

Not true.....Israeli immigration policies ensure that non-Jews will never be able to secure more than 20% of the national vote...They will never be able to throw out a government, no matter how much it discriminates against Israeli-Arabs.

Which is really my main question for you. If to meet your definition of fairness Israel must cease to exist as the only Jewish state, rendering it essentially another Arab state, then is that truly fair in the broader sense?

I’m glad you have brought up that question...What is meant by a Jewish state?...A state whose constitution mandates a Jewish majority even if at some point in the future that majority may no longer exists?.....I don’t see how a true democracy can insist on giving itself an ethnic label.

[The Magistrate]

43. Perhaps More To The Point, Sir

Do you know of any country that allows free immigration into its borders by a people with whom its relations are those of open war-fare? The practical fact is that the peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine are at war, and have been for some ninety-odd years. To discuss 'return' without notice of this is nonesense at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst.

[kayecy]

45. And had the 1948 partition taken place peacefully?.......

The practical fact is that the peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine are at war,

You really think that, had the 1948 partition taken place peacefully, the new state of Israel would have enacted a Law-of-Return giving equal right-of-return to both Jews and Arabs?.......Fat chance!.....Since 1917, Zionists had done everything they could to engineer a Jewish-majority in a land where there had been no Jewish majority for a thousand years.

[The Magistrate]

46. Had That Been Peaceful, Sir, No One Would Have Been Displaced

We would not be talking about this.

[kayecy]

49. Had Zionists arrived in Palestine without insisting on becoming the majority.........

Had Zionists arrived in Palestine without insisting on becoming the majority, there would have been no conflict and no-one would have been displaced.

The indigenous Palestinians, like the indigenous Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese etc would, in time have achieved self-determination.

As it was, the unwanted Zionists immigrants flooded into Palestine and started a 100 year conflict.......Congratulations!

[The Magistrate]

50. And Yet, Sir, Come They Did....

Most involved in that movement felt what they were doing was necessary to heal and save their people, and subsequent events, to put it mildly, demonstrated certain weaknesses in the case for assimilation, ones that dwarfed the scale of pogroms in the early years of the twentieth century.

The matter indeed became a fight, and as generally happens in fights, one party won, and one party lost. It would be hard to argue sensibly, however, that the position of the people of Arab Palestine would not today be considerably better had the political leadership of that people, and the of the surrounding Arab states, accepted the Partition decreed by the United Nations in 1947, rather than seeking by war to overthrow it.

[kayecy]

52. Well at least you agree that Zionist immigration started the conflict......

The matter indeed became a fight.........

Well at least you agree that Zionist immigration started the conflict.

Now perhaps you will explain what the Palestinians in 1917-48 were supposed to do when this flood of immigrants arrived, determined to ensure that the indigenous residents would never achieve self-determination until there was a clear Zionist majority?........The Zionists had no consience about depriving Palestinians of their birth-right.

[The Magistrate]

53. Play Their Hand A Good Deal better Than They Did, Sir....

It was the Nationalist leadership of Arab Palestine in those years which determined their people would never achieve self-determination under the Mandatory regime, despite a great many inducements offered, and the general backing the English military authorities.

[kayecy]

57. Silly me...... I assumed that Zionists and the Government-of-Israel had more in common with the US .

So you accept that Zionists started this 100 year old conflict and yet they, and you, appear to have no remorse at being the cause of so much suffering....The Zionists occupied a land where they were not wanted - not in the free-for-all 18th or 19th century, but in the 'enlightened' 20th century.

The indigenous inhabitants resisted colonialisation in the same way as the Norwegians resisted the Nazis, the Poles the Soviets and the Tibetans the Chinese.

Silly me...... I assumed that Zionists and the Government-of-Israel had more in common with 20th century US values than those of brutal, agressive, dictatorships!

[Shaktimaan]

62. Well of course the conflict would have been avoided if the Zionists never emigrated to Palestine.

But to say that they "caused" the conflict is a little ridiculous.

First of all, the middle east 100 years ago was very different than it is now. There were not the separate nations that we see today and the Palestinians were not an established national movement. The entire area was owned by the Ottoman Empire. Basically, who is to say that any of the people living in a specific place had the right to determine what ethnicity should be allowed to purchase land near them? The Middle East is a big place... and the Zionists went to one of the emptiest areas and began buying land. But that wasn't good enough because some of the people there decided that ALL that land should only belong to THEIR ethnic group. Which you consider fair, of course.

Certainly not every Arab living there rejected the Zionists. We know that doesn't make sense because the Zionists bought capital and economic opportunities that had never existed there... for the first time in decades Arabs began immigrating INTO Palestine to take advantage of the benefits wrought by the Zionists. So why do you think that a vocal, violent section of the population gets to make all of the decisions? What about the Faisal-Weizmann agreement? Or was meeting with the Arab leader not enough? Should the Zionists have gotten the signatures of everyone involved, to make sure they didn't oppose the idea of any non-Arabs buying land within a hundred mile radius of their farm?

Palestine was certainly a majority Arab country. But they were far from the only people there. So why was it that only Arabs were allowed to immigrate? When the Jews began immigrating the Palestinians didn't waste any time in attacking their Jewish neighbors. Not the new ones, the ones who had been there forever. In fact, that was pretty much the beginning of the violence. So you are essentially arguing that the Jews immigrating to Palestine caused the Arabs there to massacre the indigenous Jews, sparking the conflict. Excuse me, but that doesn't seem to make much sense.

The other side of the coin is that the Palestinians did not have to violently oppose the Jewish immigrants. Had they not done so, what do you think would have happened? Can you even begin to imagine the positive impact it would have had on both people?

And what if the Zionists had never gone there? Would the Palestinians even exist as a separate, self-identified nation do you think?

Oh, and by the way... your colonial parallel doesn't hold water. You know why? Because all of your examples are of established countries that decided to take over other established countries. None of them are examples of refugees who went to an area lacking established states and began purchasing land. Can you give me an example of colonialism where the invading country bought all of the land they developed? What is the invading country in your parallel anyway? You're actually suggesting that Palestine was colonized by a theoretical country, aren't you? And you are comparing them to the Nazis and Soviets.

[kayecy]

64. Disingenuous of you dear Shaktimaan...

Basically, who is to say that any of the people living in a specific place had the right to determine what ethnicity should be allowed to purchase land near them?

Disingenuous of you dear Shaktimaan...Land purchase is not the objection....The objection is being flooded by unwanted immigrants...Neither you nor anyone else would support unrestricted immigration to the US or any other territory, never mind unrestricted immigration that was specifically designed to change the demographics of the area.

The Middle East is a big place... and the Zionists went to one of the emptiest areas and began buying land.

Which areas do you think were more populated than Palestine?

So you are essentially arguing that the Jews immigrating to Palestine caused the Arabs there to massacre the indigenous Jews, sparking the conflict. Excuse me, but that doesn't seem to make much sense

It doesn't make sense to you because it is not true.....Have you any evidence that indigenous Jews were attacked?...The peasant Arabs revolted because they were being dispossessed of their land, their only livelyhood....Take the early 1920s 240,000 donum purchase from the absentee-landlord, Sursock family which resulted in the eviction of several thousand peasant farmers who had farmed the land for generations....What were they expected to do?...Apply for social security or attack the usurpers?...... The British Colonial Office wrote in a dispatch: "...about one fifth of Arab villages are already landless."

None of them are examples of refugees who went to an area lacking established states and began purchasing land.

They are all examples where the indigenous inhabitants resisted being taken over by an alien ethnic group...That is exactly the situation in Palestine.....Israel finds itself with strange bedfellows!

[Shaktimaan]

66. excuse me for not writing back sooner...

but at this point further discussion seems fruitless. We obviously believe in very different narratives as to the beginning of the state of Israel. That said there is something I think is worth saying. Something you mentioned here demonstrates a real lack of knowledge regarding the history of the conflict. The truth of the matter is that the roots of this conflict are varied and complex. The blame for today's current situation can't be entirely laid at the feet of either group. In my discussions with various people I've found that the more someone insists that the war is due solely to the actions of either group, the less they know about the details of the conflict.

You obviously hold very strong opinions about this subject. But with statements like this, "It doesn't make sense to you because it is not true.....Have you any evidence that indigenous Jews were attacked?...The peasant Arabs revolted because they were being dispossessed of their land, their only livelyhood" you demonstrate an alarming lack of knowledge about what occurred.

In 1929 there were Arab riots that resulted in the massacre and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Jews of Hebron. It was not due to anyone being dispossessed of their land or losing their livelihood. It was because of anti-semitic propaganda stating that the Jews planned to destroy Al-Aqsa. Just look up "Hebron Massacre" if you wish to learn more. Prior to that was the Arab riots in Jerusalem in 1920, where the Jews of the Old City were targeted and attacked, their shops destroyed and so on, while the British did nothing to intervene. And there was also the Arab riots in Jaffa in 1921.

What were they expected to do?...Apply for social security or attack the usurpers?

Your view of this history is really quite disturbing. Are those the only options you can imagine? At that exact time, thousands of Arabs were actually immigrating INTO Palestine, reversing a trend decades in the making, specifically to take advantage of new economic opportunities brought by the Zionists. Your two non-choices ignore the reality of the situation... what should displaced Arabs do? Well, what DID they end up doing? Most moved to the city and got jobs. It bears noting that attacking the Zionists has not thus far brought any economic benefits to the Palestinians.

You should also realize that a lot of the land in question was sold BY Palestinian Arabs to the Zionists. In that case it made financial sense to instigate anti-Zionist activities because the social strife helped raise the price of property being sold to Jews.

I should also say that I find it amusing that you simultaneously argue against Israel's decision to give preferred immigration status to Jews, describing it as racist, while in the same thread argue that killing people who LEGALLY immigrated to Palestine 80 years ago is justified, for the same reasons. Somehow, legally restricting the amount of land sold to Jews back then was not only NOT racist, but noble. While Israel's mere existence as a Jewish state violates some kind of ethical code of yours. One which seems to support the concept of an ethnic national identity only in select instances.

So then, to recap your position, when refugees of a different ethnicity than you buy land around you it makes sense to attack them. But restricting the immigration of people that you've been in a war with for the past 80 years is obviously racist. Did I get that about right?

The roots of this conflict are complex. It was certainly not a case of an oppressed people rising up to overthrow an invading state army, as your ridiculous parallels would suggest. It has as much to do with the political designs of local and regional Arab rulers as it does with anything the Zionists did. The Zionists are certainly not blameless. But there was also no lack of power-hungry politicians who saw their existence as an opportunity to grab influence. Had no one seen any personal political benefit to beginning the conflict then the situation would have surely unfolded very differently. I recommend you learn more about the various facets of this conflict's cause before you begin assigning blame and responsibility to anyone specific.

[kayecy]

67. I would be grateful if you could clarify the position for me regarding the riots..........

1. I took four of your earlier point and invited your comments….You chose to respond to one only, and using this one statement you accuse me of “a real lack of knowledge” of the conflict...You yourself have stated that had the Zionists not gone to Palestine there would have been no conflict...Now my question to you is what do you think the indigenous Palestinians should have done to avoid being dominated by the Zionists?...Your suggestion that they move to the city to get jobs would hardly satisfy their political aspirations, would it?


2. Your accusation that I lack knowledge of the conflict is undoubtedly true...I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify the position for me regarding the Hebron, Jerusalem and Jaffa riots...My reading of the investigations carried out shortly after the riots in question shows the following:

In 1929 there were Arab riots that resulted in the massacre and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Jews of Hebron. It was not due to anyone being dispossessed of their land or losing their livelihood. It was because of anti-semitic propaganda stating that the Jews planned to destroy Al-Aqsa.

The 1929 Hebron Riots were investigated by the Shaw Commission which concluded that Arab feelings were the result of a landless and discontented class being created by the expansion of the Yishuv.

Prior to that was the Arab riots in Jerusalem in 1920, where the Jews of the Old City were targeted and attacked, their shops destroyed and so on, while the British did nothing to intervene.

The 1920 Jerusalem riots were investigated by the Palin Commission which concluded that the main causes were:
(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.
(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Home would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.
The Commission placed the blame for the riots on the Zionists, 'whose impatience to achieve their ultimate goal and indiscretion are largely responsible for this unhappy state of feeling...The Commission singled out Amin al-Husayni and Ze'ev Jabotinsky in particular.

And there was also the Arab riots in Jaffa in 1921.

The Haycroft Commission was set up to investigate the 1921 Jaffa riots...It concluded that the fundamental cause of the Jaffa riots and the subsequent acts of violence was a feeling among the Arabs of hostility to the Jews due to political and economic causes connected with Jewish immigration and as a result, Samuel, the British High Commissioner, suspended Jewish immigration temporarily.


I can find little to support your claim that these riots were "....not due to anyone being dispossessed of their land or losing their livelihood" and that it was more because of anti-semitic propaganda stating that the Jews planned to destroy Al-Aqsa. Do you have access to other impartial investigations I should read?

[The Magistrate]

65. It Is Good To See, Sir, You Do Possess Some Knowledge of Yourself....

Because the quality of your commentary is accurately described by your header.

There was a tremendous amount of colonial expansion in the early twentieth century, in the Orient and in the Near East. England alone added almost two million square miles to its holdings after the Great War. The 'scramble' was still in full spate when the Zionist enterprise commenced, and nothing they did was outside the parameters considered usual behavior for Europeans at the time. The first stirrings of the idea colonial acquisition should be reined in or halted came in the thirties of the last century, and are somewhat tainted by racism and the military concerns of existing empires. Japan's seizure of Manchuria drew some censure, though the League did not denounce it via the Lytton Report, and it is impossible to read commentary from the time without feeling much of the umbrage owes to 'yellow men' acting like 'white men'. Complaints about Mussolini's seizure of Ethiopia had a great deal more to do with the potential threat this posed to England's sea lanes to India, and the Suez canal, than any principled opposition to imposing European rule on natives.

Viewed in the coldest light, Sir, the men and women who comprised the Zionist enterprise in its early decades set themselves a goal, and went out and fought for it, with a good deal of skill and courage and a healthy helping of luck. They won. It was far from fore-ordained that they would.

As a side note, Sir: your comparison in the above comment of the establishment of Israel to invasion by Nazis and Soviets is a declaration of both intellectual and moral bankruptcy on your part. It is probably a violation of the rules of the forum. It certainly suggests strongly there is no point in discussing this matter with you as if you were a person possessed of decency, knowledge, and understanding.

[sabbat hunter]

48. Show me where

only Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel and become citizens. If a Palestinian wants to emigrate to Israel he/she probably can go thru the proper channels to do so. Just like if they wanted to emigrate to the US, or to Egypt or to any other country in the world.

[kayecy]

51. Do you seriously think Israel would jeopardize the Jewish majority ?......

If a Palestinian wants to emigrate to Israel he/she probably can go thru the proper channels to do so. Just like if they wanted to emigrate to the US, or to Egypt or to any other country in the world.

Do you seriously think Israel would jeopardize the Jewish majority by letting more than a handful of Palestinians return to their ancestral homes?.....What the Palestinians want is a right-of-return... They don't even care if Israel limits that right to the descendants of previous residents.

What does Israel do?.....Enforce its racist Law-of-return which gives the right for any Jew, from any country in the world, to take up residence in Israel no matter that he/she might never have had a connection with Palestine except that his/her culture was predominant there two thousand years ago!

[sabbat hunter]

47. wrong count on 1

Anyone in theory can emigrate to Israel. RoR simply guarantees that Jews are automatically citizens. Others can become citizens as well, it just isn't automatic.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Anyone can emigrate in theory, but does anyone know what the reality is?

If I read Hebrew I'd go looking for it coz I'm sure the information does exist. Over the past few years how many people have emigrated to Israel under the Law of Return and how many who aren't eligible for the Law of Return have been approved using the other track that's available?

[Shaktimaan]

59. I don't know the number...

but I've personally met many people who immigrated to Israel who didn't qualify under the Law of Return. It isn't like it's an impossible thing that almost never happens.

And it is worth noting that most of the people who emigrated under the Law of Return were not even technically Jewish.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Yeah, I didn't think it was an impossible thing that almost never happens...

I'm guessing that it would involve a fair bit of hoop-jumping and having just the right skills and qualifications that are required. Going off on a bit of a tangent, but I always get a bit of a laugh at the semi-regular 'Where would you move to?' threads in GD where there's always people who think they'd like to move here and forget that they can't just up and move to another country unless they meet some pretty strict requirements....

[Shaktimaan]

61. Yeah...

A friend of mine wanted to move to Australia a few years ago and he looked into it. Since he didn't have his Bachelor's degree yet it was basically impossible.

I did meet a bunch of people who were significantly younger who moved to Israel when they were still of army age. They did not have degrees but Israel allowed them to immigrate provided they did their 3 years of service.

I know that America does some thing where you can immigrate if you do a specific amount of time in one of the armed forces, which I have very mixed feelings about. On the one hand, it is a win/win for everyone involved, provided the person isn't horribly wounded or killed. On the other, the idea of taking advantage of the less fortunate in that way makes me a little ill. Especially since it means that less Americans would be fighting our wars, so that war becomes much easier to sell and wage politically. However it is worth mentioning that there's no way I would ever sign up for the US armed forces, and someone out there has to fight. It sure as hell isn't going to be me.

[The Magistrate]

3. No One Ever Said It Was Fair, Ma'am

It is, however, what the men and women who fought to erect the state of Israel envisioned; a place to which all Jews, from whatever part of the world they might have been scattered, could enter freely, and never be barred from entering. They won the war, so they got to make the rules.

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I've seen lots of folk claim it's fair...

I know they got to make the rules, but it is incredibly unfair. Saying the winners get to make the rules doesn't change that at all...

[The Magistrate]

7. You Will Have Only Seen Me, Ma'am, Say That It Is How It Is

Wars have consequences; that is one reason people should go out of their way to avoid them.

"When you appeal to the court of force, the one thing you must not do is lose."

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Then that's also the way it was in Iraq...

It wasn't fair, but the victors make the rules. There's a whole lot of conflicts it could be applied to whenever anyone speaks up about something being unfair....

on edit: When it comes to making rules since the end of WWII, things have changed and states are supposed to comply with international law, which is the closest things to rules out there...

[The Magistrate]

11. Indeed, Ma'am, It Was

Though an excellent case can be made Iran was the victor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq....

These rules were made before the regime of international law set up after the Second World War was solidly in place. In the period when the formative events took place, displacement of persons was on several occasions directed as international law by treaty under League of Nations auspices.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. When in yr opinion do you think the relevent bits of international law were solidly in place?

Sorry to anyone reading on who isn't interested in a discussion on international law. I really enjoy this stuff :)

What Israel did was in that period after the end of WWII where decolonisation was going on in other parts of the world and things were changing swiftly. What had been seen as the way things are prior to WWII were now seen as needing to change or be addressed. I really don't believe it's a matter of saying 'that's the way things are', because when things are blatantly unfair and discriminatory they need to change. Can you imagine if Australia's White Australia Policy was still in place and I said 'that's the way things are' and said that the policy had come into being long before there was international law to do away with the concept of the winner gets to make the rules? In Australia, the British colonists and their descendents were the victors and did make the rules, and those rules pretty much stayed intact until the middle of the 1970's when it dawned on the government that the attention being paid to South Africa could very well end up on Australia. So now despite it having all come into being in an era where the winner made the rules, things have changed due to the population and government changing it, not having to be forced to by international law.

[The Magistrate]

56. Probably, Ma'am, After The Ratifications Of The Geneva Conventions Of '49

Or perhaps a better mark might be the U.N. sponsored containment in Korea, from 1950 to 1952. That was the first indication the U.N. would be different from the League, and its Charter perhaps a solid document rather than pious noise.

But there have certainly been seizures of territory by force since then. India's invasion and absorption of Goa in the sixties comes to mind as one such case.

While it may be true things can need to change, and that we would agree on the direction in which that change should trend, people who follow the standards of their time cannot be held to standards laid down afterwards, even if they are laid down very shortly afterwards. If the law making spitting on the sidewalk illegal went into force on the tenth, you cannot fine someone for having so spat on the ninth.

It is one of the great problems with international law is that it has always been so seldom enforced, and a law which is not enforced is not taken seriously, or felt by anyone to be binding, as a matter of practical fact.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Interesting that these kinds of homilies...

seem only ever to be directed at the Palestinians.

Either that or I must have missed the thread where Native Americans or Hottentots were criticised for not fighting the white man with the requisite degree of proficiency.

[The Magistrate]

12. Your Point Is Unclear, Sir

The view expressed applies, and has been applied, very widely; indeed, it applies wherever a war has been fought and lost, and particularly when that war might have been avoided by sound calculation and cool judgement concerning the actual balance of forces, and the actual stakes.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. And must it remain unfair forever? Why? The world knows better! nt

[The Magistrate]

17. It Will Remain, Ma'am, Till Set Aside By Force Majure

The Israeli state exists to be a homeland for Jews, and it has secured the fulfillment of this aim by military force. It will not let go of it so long as the force at its disposal is sufficient to maintain it. That looks to be indefinitely....

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. BDS = Nonviolent Force Majure

[The Magistrate]

20. No Such Thing, Ma'am

It might be nice if there were, but there is not.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. We'll see. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I'm afraid I disagree.

"They won the war, so the they got to make the rules" is precisely the attitude the UN was set up to overcome. Atmittedly, it's done a lousy job of doing so, but I think a little is better than nothing. Israel is - at least nominally - a signatory to international law concerning things like the acquisition of territory by force, the deliberate displacement of populations and permitting refugees to return home, and as such I think all possible attempts should be made to hold it to those rules.

I would say that "They won the war, so they got to break the rules" is closer to the truth. Admittedly, these are rules that are sporadically enforced at best, but they are rules that Israel remains officially committed to abide by.



Also, "deserve" may have nothing to do with what the outcome of Israel's and the Palestinians' actions were, but it *does* have a good deal to do with what forms of pressure other nations should be placing on the two sides to end the conflict - what did you mean by "it" in your final sentence?

[The Magistrate]

18. The War In Question, Sir, As You May Recall

Was commenced in defiance of U.N. directives, namely the Partition of '47, which the Arab Nationalists of Palestine, and supporters in the Arab League, refused to accept, and sought to overturn by military force. Had they succeeded in that effort, whatever they did would certainly have been an instance of 'the victors making the rules', and doing so in defiance of the United Nations and international law, as expressed at the time.

The situation as it is was established by victory in war, and will only be altered by victory in war. Nothing short of that will see the descendants of Arab Palestinians expelled in '48 returning to lands within the present boundaries of Israel, or an end to Jews immigrating to Israel, with the assistance and encouragement of its government.

It is very seldom, Sir, that what occurs in this world even comes close to what one of the parties to a conflict considers right and just....

[shaayecanaan]

8. An interesting link in there...

Orthodox Israeli Jewish Rabbis have found a new source for their ideologically driven settlers in order to try and fill the empty apartments in their many settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank. YOU WILL FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE WHO THEY ARE WHERE THEY COME FROM. In his article in a recent issue of Ha'aretz, Neri Livneh puts it this way:

"We are of Indian origin," says Nachshon Ben-Haim, formerly Pedro Mendosa, "but in Peru, in the Andes, there is no Indian culture left. Everyone has become Christian, and before we became Jews, we also were Christians who went to church." The "miracle" of the creation of this community of new Jews has to be chalked up wholly and exclusively to the credit - or debit - of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Two months ago, at the order of the Ashkenazi chief rabbi, Israel Meir Lau, a delegation of rabbis traveled to Peru. During their two weeks in the country, they converted 90 people to Judaism, most of them of Indian origin. The rabbis converted only those who said they were willing to immigrate to Israel immediately.

[proteus_lives]

13. The law of Return is fair.

It's a step toward correcting centuries of abuse, harassment and slaughter.

[shaayecanaan]

14. By whom? nt

[TomClash]

21. All people should have a right of return to Palestine

Violet's complaint is right: it is absurd that some guy from the Midwood section of Brooklyn can "return" to a place where he has no family roots, while some Palestinian farmer cannot go back to the land stolen from him.

The extended and exalted commentary proclaiming "the winner of the war makes the rules" directly contravenes international law as applied to post-colonial disputes both before and after WWII. There is no "law of return" to land not possessed by Israel when it declared its independence in 1948.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Is Certainly True, Sir, Israel Has No Right To Settle Anyone On Ground Over-Run In '67

That is settled law, firmly in place already when the territory was over-run, and subject of a recent affirmative ruling by a competent international court.

There were, however, no 'post colonial disputes' prior to World War Two. There were instances when the League of Nations sanctioned settlements of war that directed the deportation of persons of specific ethnicity from their homes and putting them over borders, in, as it was conceived, the interests of achieving a lasting peace.

The Geneva Accords did not come into force until 1949, after the conclusion of the 'partition war' and the establishment of Israel. Regarding the refugee question, neither side negotiated in good faith, with both sides expecting a renewal of hostilities in the near future.

[TomClash]

23. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me "sir"

Others may enjoy it but I find it phony, elitist and annoying. It is not only directed at you - I ask this of everyone who uses that and similar names. Thank you in advance.

Latin America had 19th Century post-colonial border disputes; Peru and Ecuador is one example and Chile and Bolivia is another.

When you say Geneva Accords I assume you mean the Geneva Convention, which doesn't apply here. If you mean the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which established the Green Line - it wasn't negotiated or executed in Geneva. The Geneva Convention doesn't concern the law of return, the right of return, or post-war territorial disputes, which was the topic of discussion, or so I thought. When a new country declares its independence from a colonial administration, that's where its borders are. So Israel gets the land it had when it declared independence in 1948, not the land it gained from the 1948 war.

[The Magistrate]

24. The United Nations, Sir, Recognized Those Conquests

When Israel was admitted to the United Nations, by accepting the Green Lines as the limit of Israeli governance.

Resolution 194, by the General Assembly in December of '49, is the nearest thing to a direct statement in favor of your opinion, directing that refugees wishing to live at peace with their neighbors be permitted to return as soon as practicable, among many other things. The Arab belligerents voted against this resolution, precisely because they did not think it required Israel to admit all Arab Palestinians who had been displaced. In the event, almost nothing directed by this resolution was carried out by either side, and in any case, General Assembly resolutions do not have the force of international law.

For better or worse, Sir, this is a situation established and maintained by force majure, and will remain such a situation, till greater force is brought to bear. That, after sixty years and several full-bore wars, does not seem a likely eventuality.

[TomClash]

25. We were discussing . . .

. . . the principle of international law that prevents the acquisition of land after a declaration of independence after the colonial administration expires. Nothing you wrote changed the fact that Israel declared its independence in 1948 and had different and smaller borders than it did after the armistice agreement in 1949. It retains a significant portion of Mandatory Palestine in violation of an international legal principle existing long before the end of WWII. That was my point.

There is no UNSC Resolution declaring the Green Line as the boundary. GA 273 admitted Israel into the UN. You just stated that GA resolutions were non-binding.

No one disputes that Israel gained its land through force and will keep it in the foreseeable future. No one disputes that GA 194 is non-binding. And no objective observer disputes that there is no international law that permits Israel to keep what it acquired through force. And there is nothing majestic about that.

[The Magistrate]

26. No International Legal Principle, Sir, Barring Acquisition Of Territory By Force

Existed before World War Two. The thing was far too common. Merely to take examples from well known European venues, there was nothing illegal about Prussia's acquiring Alsace-Lorraine after the 1870, and nothing illegal about France seizing it in turn from Prussia after 1918, nor was there anything illegal about Poland seizing portions of Silesia and the Ukraine in 1921. After World War Two, great swathes of territory were seized by force, and remained seized, or Kalinengrad would be known as Koenigsberg, among other things. It would be possible to spend hours providing a complete list. You appeal to something that simply has, and had, no practical existence.

[TomClash]

28. You are comparing apples and oranges

Your examples have nothing to do with decolonization and the ensuing declarations of independence. The reason uti possidetis jure existed was to try to limit post-colonial war; no one wanted frontier wars. It didn't always work out well, but your example is like saying because some rapes occur we should let all women be raped because boys will be boys.

No practical existence? After decolonization, most of the nations in Latin America and Africa adhered to this principle at least part of the time.

[The Magistrate]

29. You Are Engaged In Special Pleading, Sir, And It Is A Poor Spectacle

You stated that there was a well established principle of law prior to World War Two that territory could not be seized by force. That there was no such principle abided by, even immediately after World War Two, has been amply demonstrated. "Post-colonial war' did not occur prior to the liberation of various colonies after the Second World War, and certainly formed no separate category of war. Countries, independent by whatever means, have engaged in territorial aggrandizement as they were able, and have done so throughout history. As a practical matter, in newly liberated colonies during the fifties and sixties, appeal to territorial integrity, defined as the borders of a former colonial district, was most commonly made by a central government against a secessionist movement. Even your statement "After decolonization, most of the nations in Latin America and Africa adhered to this principle at least part of the time" concedes the weakness of your claim, and of course, decolonization is a post World War Two phenomenon.

As a legal matter, the conflict which broke out on the territory of the former Palestine Mandate had nothing to do with colonialism, post or otherwise. The Palestine Mandate was never a colony by any definition of law. It was a territory held in trust by the League of Nations, which entrusted its administration to England; England no more owned it than a party who leases a house holds title to the property. The United Nations inherited the various trust territories of the deceased League which it replaced, and could settle and close out its responsibilities in those areas as it wished. This is what made the General Assembly resolution of Partition binding, and why the admission of Israel into the United Nations on the basis of the Green Line boundaries amounted to recognition these defined the lawful extent of Israeli sovereignty.

[TomClash]

30. Please read the sub-thread again in its entirety . . .

. . . and then think about what you just wrote. Your claim that "You stated that there was a well established principle of law prior to World War Two that territory could not be seized by force" is wrong. I have consistently said this applies to colonialism - that is the whole reason for the principle. After that, your entire premise falls apart.

The notion that no colonies received independence before WWII denies much of the history of Latin America and Asia.

Mandatory Palestine was as much a colony of Britain as anywhere else. Read Begin and Ben Gurion - they certainly didn't see your distinction. The principle still applies.

[The Magistrate]

34. With All Due Respect, Sir, You Are Incorrect

It is true enough that colonies in the Americas freed themselves, from England and from Spain, dring the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. No one considered this inaugurated a 'post-colonial era', however; those places simply became normal states, and no special categories of customary international law applied to them. If you look into the history of Latin America you will find wars, territory seized, and every other thing.

The great thrust of European colonialism took place from the mid to late nineteenth, long after these old New World colonies had become states. It was in this period that the bulk of Africa was colonized, and that European colonies were established in the Middle East and on the Oriental mainland. The final stage of this expansion into the Near East came in the wake of the Great War, and in most instances did not involve 'direct' colonization, but rather the awarding of Mandate territories that then became protectorates after a few years, and some suitable treaty double-talk. In the Near East, the Palestine Mandate was the only one which did not follow this course speedily.

The legal status of the Palestine Mandatory Territory is as described. Certainly England administered it, and administered it as a colony, but the legal basis under which this was done was very different than that applied to India or Kenya. The United Nations would have had not a shadow of legal right to direct England to partition Uganda, or cease to exercise authority over Hong Kong. It had every right to do so over the Palestine Mandate, and England had no say in the question; indeed, if recollection serves, England voted against the partition resolution. Had it been an English colony, in legal terms, the word of England would have been all that mattered.

The nearest thing to a standard of international law against the acquisition of territory by force between the Great War and World War Two would be the Stimson doctrine, the suggestion by the United States in the wake of Japan's seizure of Manchuria between 1931 and 1933 that countries refuse to extend diplomatic recognition to such seizures of territory. This was endorsed by a number of South American governments, but it was not binding international law, and certainly not accepted so widely as to achieve customary status. The principle you are stating did not arise until after the conclusion of World War Two, and had nothing to do with colonialism or post-colonialism, but was simply a way to add further discouragement to the prospects of aggressive war, since no legal title could be held to any conquest. In point of fact, even in the post-war era, this principle has not been much enforced, as instances as late as the sixties and seventies of successful and diplomatically recognized seizure of territory by force could be cited.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Not at all.

To my understanding the UN didn't implicitly or explicitly accept the green line as an accepted border of Israel. This is evidenced by the reluctance of most every country to station their embassies in Israel's chosen capital, Jerusalem. As the issue of Jerusalem, (even west Jerusalem) has yet to be decided via negotiations with the Palestinians not all of Israel's borders outside of the Partition agreement (and the treaties held with Egypt and Jordan) are accepted by the UN.

Some of the borders are, but this is because of the agreements made with Jordan and Egypt. Not because Israel was accepted into the UN while governing those areas.

[The Magistrate]

37. By Accepting Them In, Sir, They Recognized Them As De Facto Boundaries

It is true that some of them have become regularized later, and that there has always been a sort of provisional quality to the country's borders, even under Resolution 242. The status of Jerusalem is rather a special case, since under the '47 arrangement it was to remain in U.N. administration, and strictly speaking, neither Israel of Jordan ought to have been there.

[stranger81]

31. It's too bad that what could have been an interesting thread

about (1) whether the RoR is actually unfair and (2) whether there are better alternatives, from a normative perspective, has turned into a discussion that essentially boils down to "life isn't fair, get over it." I suspect those taking this position here (yes, that means you, Sir) would take a rather different tact if we were instead focused on the "fairness" of, say, the Goldstone Report, or various global standards to which the international community (unsuccessfully) attempts to hold Israel. Suddenly, a normative discussion wouldn't be off the table anymore.

I'm with TomClash here -- this kind of rationalization is no better than saying "boys will be boys" to a rape victim.

But carry on. No doubt you will.

[TomClash]

32. Sorry

I didn't realize I had hijacked the thread to make a point of international law.

[stranger81]

33. Wasn't you I meant. [n/t]

[pelsar]

35. to begin with life really isnt fair....

their are two positive ways of accepting that fact of life:

one can strive to improve society..and while striving for that improvement...make lemon juice out of the lemons that you got.
-----

the jews and their friends vs the Palestenians and their friends shows an interesting contrast in attitudes given the "life isn't fair" fact of life

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. Psst.. Pelsar: We're not allowed to say "the jews" here. I think that means Jews can't say it

either.

[kayecy]

69. I must confess to being very reluctant to use the term myself .......

"Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli"."

The only reference to "Jews" in the rules seems to be the above rule...Am I missing something?....Where exactly does it say we may not say "the Jews"?

Having said that, I must confess to being very reluctant to use the term myself but I don't know why....Perhaps because it is always dangerous to lump folk together as a homogeneous mass or because "the Jews" implies the Jewish race, and I don't personally like making any differentiation between races - All men being born equal and all that.

It would be interesting to hear what Pelsar has to say on this matter.
.

[Boojatta]

70. A more general topic: the relationship between a person's religion and the person's civil status

For example, unless I am mistaken, in Europe after 1400 A.D., some people converted from Judaism to some denominations of Christianity, or their parents, grandparents, or other direct ancestors converted from Judaism to some denominations of Christianity, and they were themselves raised as Christians.

Either way, they considered themselves to be Christians, and were considered by governmental authorities to be Christians. The conversions may have increased their legal opportunities. For example, could Disraeli have been simultaneously Prime Minister of the UK (or whatever it was called at the time) and an adherent of Judaism?

Today, unless I am mistaken, there are officially Islamic countries where one's religion affects one's legal status. In particular, in many officially Islamic countries, the law today imposes special restrictions on non-Muslims that aren't imposed on Muslims.