Talk:UN General Assembly Resolution 194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Names Neither Palestinian nor Israeli Refugees

Frankly, I think this addition is a bit frivolous, and used by ideological Zionists to obfuscate the issue. It parallels efforts to cloud UN 242, for example -- it is very clear what refugees were being referenced, imho. Every refugee has the right of return under international law, regardless, so there would be no reason to stipulate between Palestinian and Israeli refugees (even though its rather clear that, for the most part, Arabs were expelled, not Israelis). -- cc

The cold hard fact is, no adjective was given,. The rest is in your head. As for "Every refugee has the right of return under international law" - how many German refugees of 1945 and their descendents are allowed to return to Koenigsberg, Breslau and Danzig? And let's not forget, Germany started the war, while Israel did not.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not disputing the facts, but what the purpose of making such an irrelevant observation in the article is. By the way, the UDHR was implemented after 1945, and was not applicable retroactively.

If you believe in international law, the Palestinians, and all refugees of war, have the right of return. That is, unless you believe victims of ethnic cleansing have no right to return from where they were expelled, which is a fairly abhorrent argument. -- cc

Furthermore: when the article in question instructs the Conciliation Committee to "Maintain close relations with the director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees", is it really any mystery if they are discussing Jewish or Palestinian refugees? -- cc

"Palestine Refugees" is open for interpretation: Israel's population quickly doubled because hundreds of thousands of Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab lands. See Austerity in Israel.

You only prove that the unreformed UN is skewed towards the Palestinians. No other group of refugees inherits this status, and even the definition is of the term is different from regular refugees. The UNWRA, the UN Division for Palestinian Rights, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, etc. are more evidence of that.

Post-WW2 is just one example of ethnic cleansing, unfortunately there are many more. Millions of refugees work to improve lives of their children and lose this status after a while, but - uniquely - one single group carries their victimhood status from one generation to another. BTW, is Quwait allowing 400,000 of the "victims of ethnic cleansing" of 1991 "to return from where they were expelled"?

Closer to the topic, the facts about the UNGA R.194 are: it is a non-binding recommendation, it does not name any group of "refugees" and it puts forward certain conditions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only did I demonstrate the UN was 'skewed' towards the Palestinians, I also proved that international convention and law is also in favor of their right of return -- rather problematic for your argument, not mine. Is "Quwait" allowing the refugees to return? No, but they should. So should Israel. Chill out. -- CC

According to what "international convention and law", descendents of refugees should be included? What group, other than Palestinians, claim this right? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

UN Resolution 194 stipulates it, actually. Read what I wrote above. If you are really seriously suggesting that UN 194 didn't refer to Israel, why was fulfillment of it a condition for Israel's entry into the United Nations? -- CC

Is this a riddle? I don't know what youre talking about. Also, you failed to answer the question. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

lol, uh. -- cc

Article is fine now. Consulted a number of academics on the issue; none had ever heard of such a claim (that is, that UN 191 was ambiguous and could, perhaps, be applied to the Jewish refugees in Israel). Pathetic nonsense, though I guess these kind of ideologues are among the side effects we have to deal with in an open-source encyclopedia. Thesobrietysrule 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks daft to me, it mentions what the resolution does not mention, in terms of race of refugees - however it does not mention the weather, or the tooth fairy. It's not for us to interpret what the resolution does and does not cover - that is Original Research. This section should list neither race of refugee. Removed. Rcnet 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

never mind, I was looking at an old diff. I'm glad it is gone. Rcnet 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)