Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: There's no right of return

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=227929
International law does not obligate/recognize the legal right of
Palestinian refugees to settle in Israeli territory. Such large-scale
return was not standard at the time the problem emerged, and it is not
used effectively today. While the issue of the refugees needs to be
dealt with seriously, Israel should be careful not to recognize a
right of return for refugees under international law, since this may
be the basis for new legal obligations.
Arrangements and declarations must not include the recognition of a
right of return, which may be later invoked as a right of individual
refugees and their descendants, which may not be waived by their
leaders.
While there should be an end to the suffering of the Palestinian
refugees, large-scale return to Israel of a population so different
from the Jewish population culturally and socially, and harboring
memories of the “disaster” and claims that justice requires a full
return, is not the right solution. It might not be best for the
refugees, and it certainly is not the way to achieve regional
stability.
Discussing this question within the human-rights discourse may well
limit the ability to reach a viable agreement. Close examination of
sources of international law supports the conclusion that it does not
confer upon them a right to return to Israel, and that Israel is under
no obligation to let them return.
THE PRIMARY resolution on which the Palestinians base their claim to a
‘right of return’ is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) from 1948.
A close examination of that resolution, as well as later ones, reveals
that these resolutions do not grant Palestinian refugees the right of
return to Israeli territory. This was true at the time the resolutions
were adopted, and is certainly true now, more than 60 years later,
when the number of refugees, together with their descendants, has
increased approximately tenfold.
Another important international document on human rights on which the
Palestinians rely, is the freedom-of-movement clause in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966. This
document did not exist when the Palestinian refugee problem came into
being, but in any event, a careful examination of it indicates that it
also does not obligate Israel to allow the entrance of Palestinian
refugees who were never Israeli citizens or residents.
International citizenship law, refugee law (as defined in the various
refugee covenants), humanitarian law and international criminal law do
not place any obligation on Israel to admit Palestinian refugees, or
grant them citizenship.
In the absence of such an obligation, Israel may well refuse to admit
a large number of refugees and their descendants, who may weaken the
Jewish majority in Israel and its stable existence as a Jewish and
democratic state (next to a Palestinian one). The same reasons might
support a reluctance by Israel to open up massive immigration of
Palestinians through family reunification. Implementing the “right” of
return may well undermine any solution to the conflict that would
permit the two peoples to live in two separate states in independence,
peace and dignity. Experience indicates that it is extremely difficult
to reintegrate populations divided by violent and extended conflict.
The same conclusion is reached by historic and comparative analysis.
In reviewing a series of historic ethnic conflicts, we find that after
an ethnic separation has actually taken place, an arrangement
preserving the separation is frequently preferable to the
reintegration of populations divided by violence. Thus, for instance,
the Dayton Agreement, signed at the end of the Bosnian War – a war
that led to a flood of refugees – stated that they had a right to
return to their homeland. In practice, however, the actual return is
hindered to this day by numerous obstacles, including ethnic animosity
and severe incidents of violence.
International recognition that political resolution or management of
conflicts is more effective than recognition of refugee return rights
has been reinforced in a new ruling by the European Court of Human
Rights. The court rejected claims of Greek refugees exiled from
northern Cyprus in 1974 that they should be allowed to settle in their
homes as a matter of human rights.
The fact that Palestinian refugees are treated the way they are stems
solely from political considerations. There is complete legal
justification for the Israeli position on this subject.

Palestinian refugees to settle in Israeli territory.
non esiste il diritto di ritorno? ottimo, abolite l'omonima legge, e sarete
in regola.
E Zanna colpisce ancora nel sette!
-------------------------------------------------------------------	
uomo bianco parla con lingua biforcuta.
il Diamat � la spiegazione di tutte le cose

 non esiste il diritto di ritorno?
ti capita mai di leggere qualcosa dei post cui rispondi?


l'ipocrisia � palese fin dal titolo. A che titolo chi basa il proprio stato
sulla legge del ritorno nega ad altri di averne una?


 sulla legge del ritorno nega ad altri di averne una?
sta pure spiegato, eh.
---
THE PRIMARY resolution on which the Palestinians base their claim to a
‘right of return’ is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) from 1948.
A close examination of that resolution, as well as later ones, reveals
that these resolutions do not grant Palestinian refugees the right of
return to Israeli territory.
---
questo ridicolo tentativo di  voler annegare la specificita' ebraica,
cercando bizzarri paragoni, e' una caratteristica del cattolicesimo
reazionario. Lo sai, vero?

reazionario. Lo sai, vero?
 
io so anche che � una caratteristica di ogni nazionalismo di estrema destra
pensare che la propria nazione abbia una specificit� che le d� diritti superiori
alle altre.


 alle altre.
e allora ti intendi poco di nazionalismi
prova a leggere i post, prima di rispondere.

 sulla legge del ritorno nega ad altri di averne una?
Gli altri vogliono il ritorno negli stati altrui.
PP

 in regola.
Bombacci, mi spieghi come mai ce l'hai tanto con la storia del
"diritto di ritorno" e non con il fatto che la lega araba vieta
espressamente ai propri membri di concedere la cittadinanza a persone
che nascono, crescono, studiano e lavorano in uno dei loro paesi
membri, ma sono nipoti di qualcuno che e` nato in un altro posto prima
del 1948?

 "diritto di ritorno"
io ce l'ho contro chi lo rivendica per il proprio stato, e lo vuole
negare ad altri.

 negare ad altri.
senti, bombacci -secondo te- tu hai diritto a infilare le *tue* mani nelle *tue* tasche?
nel caso che tu risponda sì, pensi che anche *io* abbia il diritto a infilare le *mie* mani nelle *tue* tasche?
<:3)-

lare le *mie* mani nelle *tue* tasche?
dipende. Se le mie tasche le riempi anche tu, s�


 dipende. Se le mie tasche le riempi anche tu, sì
tu stai affermando che, siccome le tue tasche le riempie il governo, il berlusca ha il diritto di ravanarti nelle tasche.
ne prendo atto.
<:3)-

tu stai affermando che, siccome le tue tasche le riempie il governo,
no, lo stato. Il governo � un'altra cosa.


 no, lo stato. Il governo è un'altra cosa.
è il governo che decide quanto e come riempirle, e tu affermi che ha il diritto di ravanarci dentro.
ne prendo atto.
<:3)-

 negare ad altri.
Vero. Molti giovani nati, cresciuti in certi paesi, vorrebbero poter
avere la cittadinanza di quei paesi ed essere legittimati a vivere nel
proprio paese.
Soltanto che non possono perche` i loro nonni sono nati in un altro
posto prima del 1948.

 io ce l'ho
dimostralo.

ne prendo atto.
ti svelo un segreto. Anche tu paghi le tasse a Berlusconi, se non sei un evasore
totale. Anzi, anche se lo sei, perch� quando vai a fare il pieno i 5 centesimi
in pi� di tasse sulla benzina li paghi comunque.



se recuperi il cuttato, lo far�. Senza, non so a cosa stai rispondendo...
