How about we defund UNRWA ?

[Kathryn]

Then you have no reason to say it.


Then don't speak "very generally". Speak factually and with reason.

I didn't say it! You are the one speaking with no facts or reason regarding my post.

 

[libre]

Across the globe, 10s of millions of refugees from other conflicts have moved to a new home and dropped their refugee status. Why not the Palestinians?

I will take that you cannot provide a method for Gazans to emigrate as an admission that you know the answer to your own question, they cannot. That's why they have the refugee status.

The rest of your reply is retreating to a motte, and not worthy of further attention.

 

[icehorse]

I will take that you cannot provide a method for Gazans to emigrate as an admission that you know the answer to your own question, they cannot. That's why they have the refugee status.

The rest of your reply is retreating to a motte, and not worthy of further attention.

I would think that as a moderator you'd refrain from attempts to read posters' minds, and then post your guesses?

With that said, there are about 2 million Arabs who are citizens of Israel, many of that 2 million consider themselves to be Palestinian, so we have good, long standing evidence that Palestinians can and do immigrate to Israel.

==

Are you able to take a step back and revisit some assumptions that seldom get challenged? The idea of this thread is to challenge the idea that we should allow Palestinians to consider themselves to be refugees 75 years after the 1948 war ended. They lost. When they were gifted Gaza 19 years ago the world should have - at that moment - stopped referring to them as "refugees". At that moment UNRWA should have been disbanded, or reorganized to support Gazans who wanted to build a home for themselves in Gaza, which could still be a pearl on the Mediterranean.

As just one example of resolving refugee situations, at the end of the Korean war there were over 3 million refugees. The Korean equivalent of UNRWA was able to settle these 3+ million people within a few years. At which point, these people were no longer considered to be "refugees", they were now settled into their new homes.

This is what has happened after most ever war that's happened in the last 100 years. Refugees are almost always one outcome of war. And that sucks, but it's reality. And then what happens is that the refugees are settled into new homes.

So why hasn'tthat happened in the case of Palestinians?

 

[icehorse]

Stop putting quotation marks around that word. That is literally what they are.


You're suggesting we ignore the current state of Palestine, or the desire of refugees, and remove their legal status as refugees in order to deny them the ability to return to the place they want to live.

Please tell me exactly when that has been done before.

I disagree. If we use the rest of history as an example, they stopped being refugees decades ago. In my mind, calling them "refugees" is a lie that become so common most people accept it without thinking about it.

So let me ask you, can you logically defend why we should consider them to be refugees without using an appeal to authority?

You're suggesting we ignore the current state of Palestine, or the desire of refugees, and remove their legal status as refugees in order to deny them the ability to return to the place they want to live.

Please tell me exactly when that has been done before.

Pretty much at the end of every war? See my example of Korea, above.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't say it!

You did. You said "Jews don't want them (refugees) there (Palestine)". That's what you said, and then immediately admitted it didn't matter. So, if it didn't matter, what did you say it?

You are the one speaking with no facts or reason regarding my post.

It is factual to state that not all Jews don't believe in Palestinian right of return, and it is a fact that what other Jews might think should have no bearing on determining the rights of where Palestinians get to live in their own country.

So, again, with those things considered, why did you say:
"I believe they want to stay in what they consider to be Palestine. And the Jewish people do not want them there."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. If we use the rest of history as an example, they stopped being refugees decades ago. In my mind, calling them "refugees" is a lie that become so common most people accept it without thinking about it.

Based on what? Please show me at what point people stop being refugees. When have we ever stripped the status of refugees from refugees?

So let me ask you, can you logically defend why we should consider them to be refugees without using an appeal to authority?

They're fleeing death from war in their homes.

Pretty much at the end of every war? See my example of Korea, above.

Except not all of those refugees were resettled, many of them DID return or CAN return, as is their right as refugees. What you're suggesting is that we remove the status of refugee from a specific group of people, thus denying them the right to return to their homes. It's not the same thing.

Your argument is like saying that, because some people recover from diseases, we should strip the status of "sick" from certain people. It's every bit as stupid as that sounds.

Also, don't you think it's a bit weird how - in other threads - you have argued against the right of Muslims to immigrate, and yet here you are arguing in favour of forcefully relocating Palestinian refugees and refusing them the right to return home?

 

[Kathryn]

So, again, with those things considered, why did you say:
"I believe they want to stay in what they consider to be Palestine. And the Jewish people do not want them there."

Most Israelis do not want most Palestinians living throughout all of what they consider to be Palestine. I already said I was speaking generally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Most Jewish people do not want the Palestinians in Israel.

That's not what you wrote. You wrote "Jews don't want them there". Not "most", and not "Israel". I'm talking about the rights of Palestinian refugees to return TO PALESTINE.

I already said I was speaking generally.

Then, as I already said, don't. Because it makes it look like you're suggesting that a) all Jews think alike and b) the opinion of one racial group in one area should determine the right of refugees to return to their homes. Maybe, in future, don't make such statements with regards to refugees and broad sweeping statements about the opinions and feelings of specific racial/religious groups.

 

[Kathryn]

That's not what you wrote. You wrote "Jews don't want them there". Not "most", and not "Israel". I'm talking about the rights of Palestinian refugees to return TO PALESTINE.


Then, as I already said, don't. Because it makes it look like you're suggesting that a) all Jews think alike and b) the opinion of one racial group in one area should determine the right of refugees to return to their homes. Maybe, in future, don't make such statements with regards to refugees and broad sweeping statements about the opinions and feelings of specific racial/religious groups.

No thanks, I'll continue as I have been doing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Most Israelis do not want most Palestinians living throughout all of what they consider to be Palestine. I already said I was speaking generally.

You've changed it again. You've gone from "Jews" to "most Jews" to "most Israelis", and you've gone from "there" (referring to Palestine) to "Israel" to "throughout all of what they consider to be Palestine".

So, considering the vast array of revisions that this very short sentence has gone through since you first wrote it, do you perhaps consider that your initial statement was, at best, poorly thought out?

 

[Kathryn]

You've changed it again. You've gone from "Jews" to "most Jews" to "most Israelis", and you've gone from "there" (referring to Palestine) to "Israel" to "throughout all of what they consider to be Palestine".

So, considering the vast array of revisions that this very short sentence has gone through since you first wrote it, do you perhaps consider that your initial statement was, at best, poorly thought out?

Nope.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

Now why don't you tell us what areas you think constitute Israel?

I wonder if Israel knows what areas constitute Israel.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope.

Then why did you completely change what you wrote three times?

Explain that logic to me.

 

[Nakosis]

Because they're refugees in the first place due to ethnic cleansing from their homeland and the illegal occupation of their land. You're asking them to give up any claim to that land or hope of returning. That's really gross. I shouldn't have to spell everything out to you.

I suspect Americans have little sense of "homeland" as we don't have centuries or even decades of identifying with a particular patch of earth.

Where I grew up I have no particular attachment to as most places where is as temporary residences. To have ownership of something that has been in the family for generations, I might feel differently about. However such is not the case so easy for me to say unburden yourself from what has been.

 

[icehorse]

Based on what? Please show me at what point people stop being refugees. When have we ever stripped the status of refugees from refugees?


They're fleeing death from war in their homes.


Except not all of those refugees were resettled, many of them DID return or CAN return, as is their right as refugees. What you're suggesting is that we remove the status of refugee from a specific group of people, thus denying them the right to return to their homes. It's not the same thing.

Your argument is like saying that, because some people recover from diseases, we should strip the status of "sick" from certain people. It's every bit as stupid as that sounds.

Also, don't you think it's a bit weird how - in other threads - you have argued against the right of Muslims to immigrate, and yet here you are arguing in favour of forcefully relocating Palestinian refugees and refusing them the right to return home?

When you stop strawmanning me, I'll respond. Until then, be well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you stop strawmanning me, I'll respond. Until then, be well.

What have I strawmanned? You said: "What's being suggested is that they lose their "refugee" status, nothing more."

That's what you're arguing, that they should lose their "refugee" (as you put it) status. What is that if not forcefully relocating them and denying them right to return? That's literally what it is when you force people out of their homes, under threat of death, and tell them they have to settle wherever they end up. There is no less accurate way to characterise that position.

 

[Revoltingest]

When you stop strawmanning....

Your posts over-use that word.

 

[icehorse]

Your posts over-use that word.

i use it when it fits.

 

[icehorse]

I wonder if Israel knows what areas constitute Israel.

View attachment 98990

Well this is one way to determine boundaries. But if we use this approach virtually everyone on the planet is living on land previously occupied by a different people.

It's useful to note that the Israelis accepted the 1947 plan but the Arabs rejected it. And since then many other plans have been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs.

 

[Kathryn]

I suspect Americans have little sense of "homeland" as we don't have centuries or even decades of identifying with a particular patch of earth.

Where I grew up I have no particular attachment to as most places where is as temporary residences. To have ownership of something that has been in the family for generations, I might feel differently about. However such is not the case so easy for me to say unburden yourself from what has been.

I get what you are saying but I want to point out that SOME American families have been in the US since before it was the US.

For instance, my family has been in what is now the US since the 1640s. My family had a farm that was in the family for many generations in fact, but I don't miss it. I have bought and sold many, many houses over the years.