SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!


You are not connected. Please login or register

Article on UNHCR

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Article on UNHCR on October 1st 2009, 17:11

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/amnesty-internationalreprieve-conference-non-refoulement-and-out

Delegates, this is an extremely important article because it explains the concept of non-refoulement well.
Just a clue-in:
"International law absolutely prohibits states from returning persons to a country where they face a real risk of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"



Last edited by palestinianauthority_ana on October 1st 2009, 17:13; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : it wasn't appearing before....)

View user profile

2 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 20th 2009, 22:01

Yes, but Palestine has no right of return, based that in U.N. General Assembly's 1948 Resolution 194 (III) calls for permitting refugees to return to their "homes" as legal support for an alleged "right of return" to the Jewish state. But General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding and do not take part of international law. Also, it was rejected by Israel all by all Arab states. After the settlement of a Jewish state and Palestinian state, Palestine can no longer claim that it is 'their state' and can return to it. Plus, the resolution would be permitted back only if they wanted to "live at peace with their neighbors," which is not the case for Palestine. In the PLO's main goals, article 8 and 9, they show their plan to destroy Israel, which was only annulled in 1998.



Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

From <http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=000902>



Israel cannot let the Palestinians into their country because there are 23 Arab states and 1 Jewish state, therefore if Israel let the Palestinian refugees in, it would become another Arab state, and would lose it's culture and be discriminated even more. Adding, that in the Oslo Agreement in 1993, which was between PLO and Israel, PLO recognizes the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.



So, since there is no right of return, a two-state solution is the only way to go. Israel will not allow Palestine to enter into any more chaos, even if they believe it is Israel itself. The Israeli delegates resolution and question of are about fixing the situation and creating a future where the two states can live peacefully along side eachother and see the years of conflict as a dark patch in the Israel and Palestinian relationship.

View user profile

3 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 20th 2009, 22:18

Erm.. Israel... this article is not really about the Palestinian right of return, since, though palestinians were expelled for their land as Israel annexed what was originally Palestine, their relocation did not happen because Israeli's tortured them out and made it impossible to live there. Palestinians are not seeking refuge in Israel, they seek to return to it under certain conditions and specifics. It is not that Israel has to accept them because they are escaping "Palestine" or another nations, but because Palestinians that fit certain criteria do have a right of return.They do not seek refuge in Israel, they believe they have, exactly, a Right of Return.
Non-refoulment, is more about accepting refugees and giving asylum to people who have suffered in their original country and seek refuge. It is basically the idea that the international community has an obligation to give refuge to such people; theoretically, they cannot kick people back to a country where they are in potential risk of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. That being clear, consequently, it falls more with the issues in Darfur, Chad and Congo, independent from the perspective they are being viewed from.

View user profile

4 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 20th 2009, 22:25

And in which country are the Palestinians being kicked to? The Israeli delegate understands about the other issues, but simply does not understands if it applies to the Palestinians. Does non-refoulment add to the case of RTP (responisiblity to protect)?

View user profile

5 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 20th 2009, 23:31

Not so much. R2P is generally about intervention. when does the international community have to intervene despite sovereignty... better yet about analyzing the extent of sovereignty when it comes to human rights abuses.

The Palestinians are not being kicked into other countries due to abuses by their government or anything like that. Its just that they don't have a country and lack space. They end up as refugees. Other countries take them in for one reason or another.

The concept in the article is more about cases in which people escape their countries due to the way they are treated there. For example, ignoring specifics, if a woman ran away from Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, non-refoulement would apply, for the nation where she sought refuge should not force her back to a country where she was subjected to such treatment.

Thus non-refoulement is not a concept so directly linked with the concerns of Israel and Palestine. It is more linked to the other committee topics.
I hope that made it at least somewhat clearer....

View user profile

6 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 21st 2009, 16:38

Thanks, delegate

View user profile

7 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 21st 2009, 18:04

No problem. =)

View user profile

8 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 21st 2009, 18:13

Delegate of Israel

Though the United States have been the country's number one partner is assuring the identity of the Jewish people and the establishment of the Israeli state, it is out of question the necessity of the Palestine right of return. The USA is convinced that the apex of the Israel-Palestine conflict is gone, and that by the latest steps taken by Netanyahu considering the creation of a Palestinian state, the Israeli state is more than apt to coming into an agreement with the PA.

First of all, the Palestine refugees are not ESCAPING from their palestine settlement, they are obviously trying to go back from the land they belong to. After the 1948 war, Palestinians fled voluntarily from their homes, expecting to return when the Arab states took control of their country. However, with the establishment of the Israeli state, these citizens found themselves blocked from returning. Basically, these Palestines who crossed the border "lost the validity of their passport", but never lost their homeland.

Also, though the delegate does not trust the validity of the GA resolution 194, the state cannot deny the following documents that support any type of right of return:

--> Article 13 of the Declaration of Human Rights that state that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and that, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states that: 1. everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.


à Article 5.2 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This concerns the Israeli delegation, as Israel has permitted the entrance of ANY foreign resident into its country, expect Palestine residents and refugees under the Is Israel committing racial or religious discrimination? It is understood that such act had been taken by groups such as the Hamas that does not recognize the existence of an Israeli state, but not all Palestine are members of the Hamas. Please comment on this, delegate.

Also, this action goes against 12.2 of the African charter on Human and People’s Rights, article 3.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which Israel is not directly a part of but, when it comes to support, countries tend to follow such documents.

Concluding, the USA would like to state that considering these aspects, Israel should be convinced that the right of return is LEGAL and NECESSARY.

View user profile

9 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 21st 2009, 19:06

Also , the USA recommends that the Israeli delegate do not state that “[/font]and would lose it's culture and be discriminated even more” because, currently, the Israeli culture includes three religions( catholic, Jewish and Muslim) and therefore the state cannot state it’s culture as ONE. The USA supports the establiushment of Jerusalem as an international City, since globalization has taught all to respect and co-exist with other religions. There are many humanitarian properties in Israel and therefore, these multitude of religons ans cultures should be respected

View user profile

10 Re: Article on UNHCR on October 23rd 2009, 13:39

The Israeli delegate would like to point out that other foreign residents have not played a part in terrorist tactics aginst Israel. Had they, in a collaborated effort over a extended period of time, Israel would more than likely block them from the country. The delegate of Israel also is aware that not all Palestinians are of the Hamas, but since the Hamas has created such a strong influence, and since there has been such hostility and deaths of the wars, it is not impossible that if Israel let's them in, they would attack. The delegate would also add that although the situation in Israel and Palestinian Territories is horrible, refugees in Darfur and Congo are being put through much more, and have no hostility against Israel, therefore Israel has an incentive to aid such countries, because there is no threat. Israel respects those documents, but doesn't see the right of return necessary. If Israeli and Palestinian cultures and refugees combine at a certain time, scarce jobs, water, homes, and food would destory Israel itself. Thereore, the collaborate two-state solution is most attractive and in time, Palestine can hopefully maintain itself without such financial UN support and the countries can thrive without needing such right of return. The only block against peace is ourselves, and the Israeli delegate is certain that a comprise can be made.
The Israeli delegate respects the culture of Israel, and wishes to exand her previous post. That Israel cannot loose the unique culture of the Jews, which would mean a large portion of the majority of Jewish culture of the world would be gone.

View user profile

11 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 3rd 2009, 13:44

israel_andrea wrote:The delegate would also add that although the situation in Israel and Palestinian Territories is horrible, refugees in Darfur and Congo are being put through much more, and have no hostility against Israel, therefore Israel has an incentive to aid such countries, because there is no threat. .
Delegate of Israel
Not only is the US one of your greater allies and major contributor to the creation of the Israeli state and the preservation of such title, but also a “friend" that sees the need to help Israel within it's decisions. That is why, the US feels that it needs to "intervene" in such discussion and advice Israel on how to deal with such issue. This case has become more that religious, territorial or political feud. The Palestine- Israeli conflict is now a battle of egos: drawing a line to divide people within their cultures and therefore establish hatred in the HOLY LAND. However, this need to come to an end and the first step should be taken by Israel that already has a stronger, settled government and financial capability to finance improvement in the land. By stating that people are suffering MORE in Darfur and Congo and therefore Israel should devote more aid to those causes is a bit risky. What US advices is to commit to both the Darfur and Congo but do not add that the country is aiding them because they mean no threat. By saying that Israel is denying aid to refugees who have absolutely nothing to do with hostilities against its nation, plus assuming they are part of the Hamas. What the US wants to make clear is that Israel cannot inconsiderate these refugees since they are former Israeli citizens, and should be at least supported by Israel.

View user profile

12 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 3rd 2009, 13:46

israel_andrea wrote: Israel respects those documents, but doesn't see the right of return necessary. If Israeli and Palestinian cultures and refugees combine at a certain time, scarce jobs, water, homes, and food would destory Israel itself. Thereore, the collaborate two-state solution is most attractive and in time, Palestine can hopefully maintain itself without such financial UN support and the countries can thrive without needing such right of return. The only block against peace is ourselves, and the Israeli delegate is certain that a comprise can be made.





Delegate of Israel,



The Right of Return is MORE than necessary. Denying this is denying the effectiveness and importance of the documents stated above by the US. As explained a thousand times before, these refugees are former Israeli citizens and cannot be denied citizenship as its being done. The US resolution asks for the creation of a legislative bureau where former residents in Israel can prove their citizenship and apply for the Oleh visa. Of course, it would consider clause number 2 of the Israeli Law of Return that states that the state has the power to grant the Oleh visa to a registrant that is not “engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or likely to endanger public health or the security of the State”. This means that Israel will be able to grant or not the visa just like we do in our nation. All must be aware of the USA has the right to grant or not visas to foreigners. Considering the major immigration that occurs into our borders, the US needs to have such control. Israel too has the right to do this and therefore would be engaged in protecting its own nation while granting the Palestinian refugees their basic Human Rights.

When it comes to say that the return would destroy Israel itself, the Israeli delegate is defending its state against the Hamas and it’s threat against the existence of the Israeli state. However, by stating this, Israel is forgetting that these refugees cannot be considered as pro-Hamas, and probably only consider its ideas because the Palestinian authority is not strong enough to maintain the hospitals, schools and aid the Hamas can. Also, these are former Israeli residents, so if this was to occur, then in 1947 and 1967 Israel would be destroyed.

View user profile

13 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 3rd 2009, 21:23

Although the Israeli delegate agrees with granting a Oleh visa to former Israeli citizens, a caution for this would be that in a study done in 1999:
79% of Palestinians support the intifadah
Almost 69% support homicide bombings against Israelis
67.1% rejected ending the uprising in return for "ending Jewish settlement",
and only 25.1% approved

Therefore, all states can see our concern considering the Palestinians. Years of battle is hard to overcome. Especially when dealing with terrorists, the Hamas, that are still in power in P.A..


The Israeli delegate proposed an international passport for Jerusalem and Israeli/Palestinian citizens in the resolution. Perhaps an international visa for both Palestine and Israel would also make the progress towards peace more concrete.

View user profile

14 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 12th 2009, 08:31

The United Statets is very pleased with the last post by the Israeli delegation.


Such information is crucial for the completion of the Palestinian Right of Return . It is in fact essential to take in consideration the Plaestine support towards the Hamas and the Intifada, as this diinishes the Israeli trust. But delegate, WHAT makes the Palestine pople supporters of terrorists? WHAT makes them turn to the Hamas instead of their own authority? Lack of opportunity, of trust, inisiative and more than that, of certainity that the goverment will actually be useful in providing them their basic needs. While the goverment has limited resources, the Hamas is capable of providing these people shelter and food, and consequently religious teachings that provide a "devine" solution towards their problem? What does a weak person need more that a leader who'll use criminal mens, but give you the best , when the righteous one is lacking resources? What the Palestines need more than ever is a STRONG, CAPABLE Palestinian Authority who will be able to overcome the Hamas and cooperate with Israel. If they support homocide bombings and attacks in Israel that is only because hatred has been implemented into their lives by their only sopporters, the terrorists.


Considering the Oleh visa, Israel needs to act with the best of it's intentions. The American resolution in the UNHCR calls for the liberation fo Oleh visa complying with the second clause of the Law of Return insituted by israel itself. That would be that Oleh would only be given to those who the nations considers trustworthy and that does not signifiy danger to any of it's residents. That way, ISrael would have the total control of it's borders, like any sovereign nation does, and would permit that innocent Palestian refugees and former Israel residents move back home. But, Israel needs to cooperate and be very ethical when distributing the visas, as it cannot use the second clause to impeed ALL to enter and use this an excuse.

View user profile

15 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 15th 2009, 23:18

What the Palestinian people need is an authority figure that it can look up too because of it's moral and financial grounds, bot because it is their only route. Israel will work hard to ensure safety to all Palestinians and aid them until they can support themselves. Israel's one wish is that the Hamas will loose power and support of it's people. When that day happens, Israel will know that the threat no longer exists.

View user profile

16 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 16th 2009, 18:29

Israel, regarding the Hamas deal, news flash: that ain't gonna happen.

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

17 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 16th 2009, 20:30

Could the delegate of Iran please refrain from sarcasm and please explain how come this " aint gonna happen"? Is the delegate affirming that a péace order is not possible in between the Hamas, Palestine and Israel, menaing there is no solution to such problem?

View user profile

18 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 16th 2009, 21:39

United States, the Iranian delegate never said that. What was simply mentioned was that the Palestinian people will not "end their support" for the Hamas -- they are freedom fighters. They fight for the liberation of Palestine. And yes, there is a solution: Israel gives back Gaza Strip and West Bank as established borders previous to the Six-Day War invasion (1967), frees the thousands of Palestinian citizens held captive in Israeli dungeons (including political prisoners), removes the Israeli settlements from West Bank, destroys the Israeli-separation wall deemed illegal by the United Nations and the ICJ, accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees, dismantles their military units in the occuppied territories, agrees to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with IAEA inspections to its nuclear clandestine facilities, tolerates East Jerusalem as belonging to the Muslim-Arab population, agrees to compensate with financial reimbursement for more than 60 years of subjugation and oppression towards the Palestinian people, provides a percentile of its trade income to victims of its violent raids and aerial bombardments, accepts to be trialed by the International Criminal Court for war crimes during the latest Gaza Strip incursion and crimes against humanity, endorses the formation of a military belonging to the recognized Palestinian state government, understands the choice of the Palestinian people to be represented by both the Hamas and the Fatah, realizes that the Hamas are a political group and, hence, should not be deemed as "terrorists," gives up control of water reservoirs in the West Bank, concedes Syria its rightful ownership of the Golan Heights, and, most importantly, cuts loose from the attached strings as puppets from the United States of America.

These are a couple in the list of what should be settled before the Middle-East reaches out for peace. Hope that answered the question.

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

19 Re: Article on UNHCR on November 17th 2009, 12:33

Why would a country recognize a terrorist group who refuses to recognize Israel? And would the Palestinians get tried as well, because both sides committed mistakes, and it is not fair to condemn one side, if the other goes free. Palestinians have launched innumerous terrorists attacks on Israel, so Israel simpl attacked in defense and pre-emptive.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum