Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

@berbatrick and @PedroMendez,

just to be clear, here is the pertinent part of the UNHCR definition in relation to points 2 and 3 above:

"the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who...

...As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national...

...This Convention shall cease to apply to any person...if...

...He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."​

In regards to the relationship of the UNHCR with the UNRWA, it states:

"This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention."​

http://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/3b66c2aa10
 
Note on Refugees' Descendants

The 1951 Refugee Convention is silent on the matter of descendants, except for the nuclear family.

According to the (PDF) Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate, nuclear family members of a refugee are automatically eligible for Derivative Refugee Status. This means that as individuals they are entitled to all the 'benefits' of being a refugee, but are not refugees themselves.

In contrast, the UNRWA definition includes as refugees all the descendants of male refugees. This includes descendants beyond the nuclear family, who under the 1951 Convention might not meet the criteria.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
Note on Refugees' Descendents

The 1951 Refugee Convention is silent on the matter of descendents, except for the nuclear family.

According to the Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate, nuclear family members of a refugee are automatically eligible for Derivative Refugee Status. This means that as individuals they are entitled to all the 'benefits' of being a refugee, but are not refugees themselves.

In contrast, the UNRWA definition includes as refugees all the descendents of male refugees. This includes descendents beyond the nuclear family, who under the 1951 Convention might not meet the criteria.
Click to expand...

I wonder if/how this 'derivative' status applies to third generation descendants?
 
Here is the case against the anti-UNRWA agenda, laid out by a McGill professor with expertise in the area:

UNHCR, UNRWA, Palestinian statehood, and refugee status

...what would happen if UNHCR status rules were applied to Palestinian refugees?

1) It should be noted, for a start, that UNRWA only determines refugee status for service eligibility, not for the purposes of rights or protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention. To some extent, therefore, it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Palestinian refugees under the care of UNRWA are excluded from the Convention under Article 1 D. However, that same Article notes that such persons would be eligible for Convention protections if their situation is not otherwise “definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.” In other words, the international community insisted on a multiple layers of protection for Palestinian refugees from the outset: UNRWA, the 1951 Convention in UNRWA’s absence, and a requirement that their situation be resolved in accordance with relevant UNGAR resolutions, meaning UNGAR 194 (1948).

2) It has been alleged that I claimed that “UNHCR and UNRWA definitions for refugees were virtually identical,” which is a (deliberate?) misreading of my position and the nuances of the international refugee regime. As I have argued many times before, it is my view that Palestinian citizens of Jordan—who are clearly able to avail themselves of the protection of a state—would not normally be eligible for UNHCR refugee status. (The Jordanians could, however, argue that the wording of the Convention rendered them eligible nonetheless under the terms of cessation clause of paragraph 2 of Article 1D.)

3) Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon are generally stateless, and would certainly be considered for multi-generational derivative refugee status in accordance with existing practice under UNHCR rules. Indeed, non-UNRWA, subsequent generation, stateless Palestinian refugees (i.e, those without citizenship and outside UNRWA’s area of operations) are quite regularly treated as Convention refugees by both UNHCR and Western countries. A case in point is Iraq, where UNHCR treated Palestinians there as refugees under the 1951 Convention:

Palestinian refugees in Iraq, being outside UNRWA’s area of operations fall within UNHCR’s competence by virtue of paragraph 2 of Art.1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.​

It should be noted that UNHCR also insisted that third country resettlement of such refugees should only be considered as an “exceptional humanitarian response and an option of last resort.” They urged that Palestinian refugees be permitted by Israel to repatriate to the West Bank and Gaza (Israel refused, while the PA was unenthusiastic). UNHCR also aserted that “resettlement should be seen as a temporary solution for Palestinians, without jeopardizing their right to return.”

4) Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are, de jure, citizens of the State of Palestine. Given this, do they therefore lose their refugee status or representation (or, more accurately, would they lose the former under UNHCR/Convention rules)? This concern was raised by some Palestinian refugee advocates at the time that Palestine applied to the UN for recognition as a state, and has also been raised by others as invalidating Palestinian refugee claims and status. However, despite UN recognition, in no way can Palestine be considered a de facto functioning state, able to provide protection for its citizens.

Therefore, no country—not even Israel—has seriously claimed that recognition of Palestine invalidates the refugee status of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza. Moreover, UNGAR 67/19 (2012) on the “Status of Palestine in the United Nations” explicitly invokes prior UN resolutions (including UNGAR 194). The Israeli government in particular has no interest in pursuing this, since this would result in a termination of UNRWA services in these areas, severely destabilizing the PA while enabling Hamas to assume full control over the Gaza education system—something it has been anxious to avoid. Indeed, Israeli officials continue to urge donor countries to increase, not reduce, their financial support for the Agency in these areas.

Finally, it should be noted that debates over UNHCR vs UNRWA refugee eligibility are largely an irrelevant red herring. The refugee issue does not derive from UNRWA service eligibility rules, and Palestinian concern with return, repatriation, and refugee rights would not end even if the Agency were to disappear in a puff of blue smoke tomorrow. Moreover, if somehow—perhaps due to intervention by a herd of magical, fluffy flying unicorns, since there is no other imaginable way it would occur otherwise—UNRWA were dissolved, UNHCR would almost certainly treat most Palestinian refugees as refugees. Furthermore, the General Assembly would, with absolutely certainty, direct it to do so. Indeed, some years ago some Palestinian refugee activists favoured a shift of the Palestinian case from UNRWA to UNHCR for precisely that reason, feeling the latter had a much stronger protection mandate, was far more activist, and would more explicitly press for the refugees’ “right of return.”
 
2cents said:
I wonder if/how this 'derivative' status applies to third generation descendants?
Click to expand...

The nuclear family is limited to (i) spouses; (ii) unmarried children (under-18); (iii) parents/primary caregivers to a refugee under 18; (iv) other dependents; (v) minor siblings of a refugee under the age of 18.

If so, it may not be automatic. Former General Counsel to UNRWA, James Lindsay, notes that:

James Lindsay said:
The granting of derivative refugee status to other persons is not automatic and depends on an individualized “family unity interview” and analysis of the “relationship of social, emotional or economic dependency” between the refugee and the person
claiming derivative refugee status.
Click to expand...
 
A kid born in a refugee camp is born a refugee, they would have the right of return like their parents, otherwise you are arguing that the latter can return to their country of origin but not the former

That the Palestinians have not been able to exercise this right just shows the inherent racism of Israel, there cannot be a Jewish state without a Jewish majority, the founders of the state made sure of that
 
25 years ago today:

yitzhak-rabin.jpg
 
PedroMendez said:
Have you seen the movie "Waltz with Bashir"? Whats your opinion on it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought it was great. Can understand why some Palestinians might not particularly like it.
 
CNN: “Trump also said Wednesday he expects his administration will release its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan proposal in the next two to four months.”

This “peace plan” is a mirage. Given that the Israelis prefer the status quo to any kind of conceivable peace agreement, I’m convinced they’ve just told Friedman, Kushner and Greenblatt to play for time. They’ll produce something comical at the end of Trump’s term then blame the Palestinians for rejecting a generous offer. A complete charade.
 
2cents said:
Dpy10enWwAAZLPp
Click to expand...

Good old Douglas Adams:
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.
Click to expand...
 
Gaza once again on the brink - Israeli operation last night ended with one high-ranking Hamas commander killed along with six (I think) others, and one Israeli soldier killed. Israelis claiming the operation was a routine task gone wrong, Hamas claiming it deliberately targeted their guy and so constitutes a breaking of the ceasefire.

Rocket fire and air strikes subsequently launched, and now massive pressure building on Netanyahu to go all in.
 
2cents said:
Gaza once again on the brink - Israeli operation last night ended with one high-ranking Hamas commander killed along with six (I think) others, and one Israeli soldier killed. Israelis claiming the operation was a routine task gone wrong, Hamas claiming it deliberately targeted their guy and so constitutes a breaking of the ceasefire.

Rocket fire and air strikes subsequently launched, and now massive pressure building on Netanyahu to go all in.
Click to expand...
A “routine task”? Sending soldiers into Gaza and shooting the first guy that asks to see ID. Funny how the “border” is sacred in only one direction.
 
Allegedly Muhammad Bone Saw told his mate Bibi to stir things up in Gaza to cause a distraction from the nasty Kashoggi business.
 
Kaos said:
Allegedly Muhammad Bone Saw told his mate Bibi to stir things up in Gaza to cause a distraction from the nasty Kashoggi business.
Click to expand...

That's according to 'sources' for the Qatar-backed Middle East Eye.
 
2cents said:
That's according to 'sources' for the Qatar-backed Middle East Eye.
Click to expand...
Yeah I did take it with a pinch of salt but it wouldn’t surprise me the slightest either. There has been a recent soothing of Gulf-Israeli relations after all (well I’d argue the animosity was never really there in recent decades but that’s another debate altogether).
 
Kaos said:
Yeah I did take it with a pinch of salt but it wouldn’t surprise me the slightest either. There has been a recent soothing of Gulf-Israeli relations after all (well I’d argue the animosity was never really there in recent decades but that’s another debate altogether).
Click to expand...

Well if it's true it doesn't appear that Netanyahu is ready to oblige, he doesn't seem anxious for another war right now.
 
Such an insightful speech, if his speech was about another country, he would not been fired.
 
That was a very well crafted and informative speech. People can argue it was one sided, but you have to ask the question who's side? The powerful's or the weak's?

I'm glad CNN have shown their true colours. For some reason they were starting to be seen as American journalism heroes against Fox. Ultimately they're still just as they have always been: white American elites. Different side to the same coin.

Interesting that Lamont mentions a united global struggle. Flags for Palestine flying when a black American is killed in the US, etc. Lamont Hill seems to be the black president the US needs instead of the uber-intelligent imposter Obama.
 
Any of you guys have an idea what the problem with the demand for a „Palestine free from the river to the sea“ is? No one found it necessary to even mention it so far.
 
Synco said:
Any of you guys have an idea what the problem with the demand for a „Palestine free from the river to the sea“ is? No one found it necessary to even mention it so far.
Click to expand...
free of occupation, as simple as that, occupied lands since 1967.
 
Giggsyking said:
free of occupation, as simple as that, occupied lands since 1967.
Click to expand...
I don't think that ever was the meaning. It's about the reversal of 1948, not 1967. From the river Jordan to the Mediterranian sea (and not just the Gaza coast there).
 
Mozza said:
He said 1 state from the river to the sea, equal rights for everyone.
Click to expand...
Well, that is the reversal of 1948 not 1967, i.e. the dismantling of Israel. Which no one can expect to be achieved by other means than a catastrophic war, and that wouldn't result in such a state.

Lamont Hill has actually denied your interpretation in his twitter response to his firing. But that in turn is in clear contradiction with how that slogan has been used by relevant regional players in recent years. For all I know, it has a clear and unmistakable meaning since its creation.
 
Synco said:
I don't think that ever was the meaning. It's about the reversal of 1948, not 1967. From the river Jordan to the Mediterranian sea (and not just the Gaza coast there).
Click to expand...
He said it with his own words. He said since the Nakba (1967). Sorry mate, but you are wrong.
 
My use of "river to the sea" was an invocation of a long history of political actors – liberal and radical, Palestinian and Israeli – who have called for their particular vision of justice in the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. For many, justice will come from a two-state solution. For some, like me, justice will come through a single bi-national democratic state that encompasses Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I strongly believe that this is the best method to achieve peace, safety, security, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. Justice requires that everyone, not just a single side, is free and equal.
Click to expand...

http://www2.philly.com/philly/opini...palestine-israel-united-nations-20181201.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.