Thursday, December 8, 2011

The Truth About the Refugees: Israel Palestinian Conflict

Once again, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon (Israel Beitunu - Israel Our Home), does it again, with a clear and concise video explanation of the issue.
The issue of Palestinian refugees is not so much Israel being the occupier, as one might believe. Palestinian refugees are actually a group of people cynically used by Arab leaders for their own benefit. They are not granted citizenship by the PA or any of the Arab countries within which thy reside, such as Lebanon and Syria. (The notable exception to this, to their credit, is Jordan.) They are not allowed to work, marry, leave the refugee camp... Compare this to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries (and from Europe after the Holocaust) who were unceremoniously thrown out of their own countries, (in contrast to the Palestinian refugees who mostly left,) and were immediately granted full Israeli citizenship.


  1. Don't forget to follow @DannyAyalon!!/DannyAyalon/status/144786984957788160!/DannyAyalon/status/144787098564706306

  2. ‎1. The comparison between the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees is both irrelevant and deceiving. It is irrelevant because, it suggests that if both sides suffered,now they are "even". But this is untrue, since two wrongs do not make a right. On the contrary, we are dealing now with TWO independent injustices: Arab-Jews should be allowed to return to their country of origin (if they so wish), and Palestinians should be allowed to return to their homeland in Palestine. Furthermore, the comparison simply doesn't hold. Israel is the "homeland" of the Jews, but Syria/Lebanon etc... are not the "homeland" of Palesitinians - Palestine is, and always will be.

    2. Legally and morally, the onus is on Israel, not on anybody else, to allow Palestinians to return to their homeland, just as it is the responsibility of the Arab countries to allow Jews to return if they so wish. Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the UNHCR Handbook states that "the right of refugees to return to their country of origin is fully recognised in international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) established in article 13 (2) that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a Resolution of the General Assembly, is not a treaty requiring signature or consent, it sets the code of conduct and serves as a point of reference for all universal and regional human rights instruments subsequently adopted."

    3. Regarding the refugee status, UNHCR's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status provides in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
    In effect, refugee families everywhere retain their status as refugees until they fall within the terms of a cessation clause or are able to avail themselves of one of three durable solutions already mentioned -- voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement in a third country.
    Also, Chapter 5 of the UNHCR publication, Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

    This is why I think that Israel must accept full responsibility for settling Palestinian refugees, a duty that has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of the Jewish refugees in past generations

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I wonder if you could listen to the words of Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin and tell me: is there anything in what he says that does not make sense?

    To me what he says makes more sense than what Ayalon is saying.

  5. There's nothing he says in that video that's accurate. For starters, he does hate Jews.

    These are but a tiny example of the indoctrination Hamas forces upon their young children. Their charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish State. Hamas leaders proudly declare their hatred for the Jewish people.

    Next, it's filled with other lies. They never assaulted Jews? They never trampled on their rights? Forget 1948. What about the constant pogroms before the founding of the Jewish State? No settlements, no occupation, no refugees, no imperialistic western colonialists to blame, etc. yet still the ancient Jewish community of Hebron (dating back to the times of King David, almost 3,000 years ago) was destroyed by marauding Arabs who massacred 70 innocent Jews for no reason other than anti-Semitism.

    How is he clearer than Ayalon? Ayalon documents the facts quite clearly in a language I understand (not just the words - the content).

    Virtually everything Yassin says about Jewish/Arab relations is a complete and bold-faced lie. Any knowledgeable historian would tell you that. I can lie to you as well, but I have no need as I have the facts on my side.

  6. Right, I don't quite agree that he is lying, I don't think that he - or the Hamas in fact - hates Jews, on the contrary they meet Jewish leaders (from Satmer, Neturei-Karta and peace movements as well) have been invited to Gaza, met Hamas leaders, stayed for a couple of days or more and returned in safety. So I don't think the issue is between Jews and Hamas per-se, but between occupiers and occupied

    But let's put that question aside. Suppose that the Hamas' position was well reflected in that clip. Would you say then that you agree with their position?

  7. Here's a poem, a quest for revenge by a Nakba survivor. I think his words reflect much of the pervasive sentiment among survivors

  8. By the way, there were no attacks on the Jewish community in Palestine before the Zionists + British colonialists (Balfour) began ethnic segregation and dispossession of the non-Jewish natives.

    Regarding the attacks that followed the Balfour declaration, Zionists themselves admitted that their movement was partly to blame for the ethnic tension between the natives and the Zionist immigrants from Europe. Here's a citation from an essay written in 1929 by the Zionist Hans Kohn,

    "We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August. Since they have no armies, they could not obey the rules of war. We are obliged to look into the deeper causes of this revolt. We have been in Palestine for twelve years without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous people... We have set ourselves goals which by their very nature had to lead to conflict with the Arabs. We ought to have recognized that these goals would be the cause, the just cause, of a national uprising against us. [such as the fact that we have not] even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous peoples.
    - "Zionism is not Judaism", Hans Kohn, November 1929