Why do we still have Palestinian refugees?

Post Reply New Topic

Years ago Jews in Iran were kicked out of the country, I have some Jewish friends this happed to, they lost everything and had to start over. They do not consider themselves refugees today, but why do we still have Palestinian refugees?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COFf5Cq-oIc&list=UUrh56C-MIuLFWBp8TuNR6sg[/youtube]

The video deliberately overlooks no fewer than three important points:

* Originally, it wasn't just a case of the 'poor' Israeli settlers against the neighbouring arab countries. The original Israeli settlers were a armed militia, backed by the British empire. Not only that, some of the Israeli terrorists were even attacking their own British sponsors.
-However European or American Israel supporters feel they are qualified to say on the history of the region, the arrival of the Jews en masse was rightly or wrongly viewed by the muslim population as an illegal invasion (considering it was also armed, with designs on their land). Any other part of the world would likely have reacted the same way.
* Its hypocritical of this Israeli hawk to criticise arab nations failure to solve the conflict when Israel actively denies the right of return to Palestinians who flee the country. Moreover, why should the onus be on countries who have no stake in this conflict?
*It is blatant that Israel is attempting to create an air of normalisation, to discredit the ideal of Palestinian statehood (through the process of bulding illegal settlements and arab expulsions thereby creating an artifical Jewish majority). The reason the UN isn't giving the same status to other refugee populations is the political semantics are vastly different, and can't be seen to be assisting the liquidation of the Palestinian identity on Israel's behalf. Any efforts by the UN need to and should be, intuitive to a two state solution with the right of return.

That's not entirely accurate. There were Jewish communities living in the area in which we now call Israel for centuries before the creation of Israel but here's the thing, they were constantly subject to periodic pogroms by their neighbouring muslim communities (ever heard of the Hebron Massacre of 1929?). Anyway, the "armed militia" as you called them were actually created in order to protect the Jewish communities from the periodic pogroms against the Jews in the region in the 1920's, including the Hebron Massacre. Their were later also violent attacks against Jewish communities in many of the neighbouring countries which is why they fled to Israel as refugees after the state of Israel was created.



One does not have to have a stake in a particular conflict in order to grant asylum to refugees. Moreover, the international law regarding people with refugee status puts the responsibility of repatriation of the refugees on the country that grants them asylum. There are lot's of Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa who flee across the border and just like it's South Africa's responsibility to repatriate these people if they are granted asylum, it is the responsibility of those neighbouring Arab countries to repatriate the Palestinian refugees if they grant them asylum. One more point that people who your above augment seem to miss - there is no such thing as a Palestinian refugee younger than 75 years old. The Israeli War of Independence happened in 1945 and the official definition of a "refugee" is someone who was forced out of their country of origin. So, the children and grandchildren of the original Palestinian refugees who are living the West Bank and Gaza Strip are, by definition, not Palestinian refugees despite the fact that many, in fact most, anti-Zionists try to obfuscate the issue by called them "refugees". They have never lived in their purported place of origin, therefore they are not refugees, by definition.



Oh please. You seem to think that the UN is an independent body capable of making it's own deceptions, it is not. The UN cannot make make it's own decisions because the fact that it relies on votes means that it is subject to bloc voting. The UN Human Rights should not be seen to be singling out and spending a disproportionate amount of time on human rights abuses of one particular nation to the exclusion of others, yet that is exactly what it does due to regional bloc voting. There has not been a single resolution against Zimbabwe, there was no a resolution against Sudan when that genocide was going on, there was no resolution against Syria when that massacre happened in the past year and Colonel Gaddafi was seen as "great upholder" of human rights when he was still leader of Liberia, yet over half of the resolutions (i.e. the majority) were against Israel, why is that? This does not in any way mean that they should pay no attention to Israel but if they wanted any kind of legitimacy then they can't afford to focus almost exclusively on Israel while ignoring human rights abuses elsewhere in the world.

No - Jewish people have lived in the Land of Israel for milennia. It is the home of the Jewish people. Jerusalem is not sacred to the Arabs or to Islam; Mecca is.

Yes - and most of the people massacred at Hebron were not, in actual fact, Zionist pre-Israel Yishuv'ers but were the centuries old dhimmi communities.

No - it was in 1948. Five Arab armies invaded the newly-established Jewish state with the intent of wiping out Israel and committing genocide.

I stand corrected. It was 1948. My point about the children and grandchildren of the refugees that fled in 1948 not themselves being refugees still stands however.

Saying that the children and grandchildren of refugees are also refugees is like saying that the children and grandchildren of those who emigrated to America to escape The Troubles in Belfast are victims of IRA oppression.

You're right and wrong. Yes, the Jews existed in that area for milennia, the difference is that until British meddling and consequent backing of Irgun militia the Jews existed in relative peaceful co-existance with their muslim neighbours.

However, its a blatant lie that Jerusalem is not sacred to muslims, the mosque of the dome of the rock is the second most revered site in Islam after Mecca itself.

I'm sorry but you're rambling utter bollocks.

I don't think anyone in either America or Ireland would argue such a thing. The Irish diaspora in America are descendants of the potato famine refugees which predates the IRA by the order of sixty years. Very few, with the exception of petty criminals, were exiled to America from Northern Ireland by the IRA.

Far from seeing the IRA as 'oppressors', many Irish Americans were actively sponsoring the IRA up until its decommission in 2005.

A street in the USA is named after the IRA hunger striker Sands.

The difference with Palestinian refugees is that they lack a country to call their own because the Israelis refuse them admittance. The same can't be said for the Irish.

As for broader muslim intervention in the original conflict, the reason is that the Zionists when they came had designs not just on Palestine but also significant parts of Jordan and Syria (Eretz Yisrael as they called it) You can't blame them for being upset.
[img][800:656]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Greater_Israel_map.jpg[/img]

The parties of God don't want peace. That's why there are Palestinian refugees.

OMG OP are you serious, have you bothered to give this issue more than a fleeting glance.

This map should be the starting point in your quest to understand.

[img][800:539]http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-palestine_map.jpg[/img]

The reason your jewish friend doesn't consider themselves refugees is because they are not refugees, they have a country that the are a citizen of(which was taken from the palestinians who are now refugees). The palestinians refugees are refugees, they are not a citizen of any county.

I think what happened to the Jews that got kicked out of those countries is wrong but, if it wasn't for the state of Israel being created they would still be living in the countries from which they came from.

Also at @jono and fnord. If your parents are refugees then you are a refugee also. What you say doesn't make sense, if the decendents of the original refugees are not refugees then what are they then?(they don't magically become a citizen of a country) If an original refugee changes status and is excepted by another country then sure the desendent isn't a refugee anymore.

DoodleDoo that youtube is just propaganda from the Israelie government. You need to think for yourself. If you look at the whole picture, it's not hard to see what has happened to the palestinian people. They have been driven off their lands and are still being driven off their lands through jewish settlements.

Before Israel was created in 1948 it existed pre 586BC. it survived for 400 years. It really is only a small portion of the lands history. Oh and ancient history at that, it really is.

I think the creation of Israel was maybe a nice idea, but unforturnately there were people already living there and they didn't want it, it was forced on them, they had no say in it.

If Israel is so excepting of refugees, then why don't they accept the Palestinian refugees.? Like isn't that where they came from.

If you put your prejudices aside and look it objectively you will see Israel for what it is.

It would appear that you mistakenly linked to the wrong map, DentArthurDent. Apparently, this happens quite frequently.

Fear not. Here is the historically accurate one.

^

Statehood, or lack of, does not legitimise the systematic dispersal and genocide of an indigenous population.

Were that the case it would absolve the oppressors of jewish victims.

It's a strange kind of genocide when the Palestinian population is actually increasing faster than the Israeli population. You must have a weird definition of genocide, different from the definition that everybody else uses.