Right of returnFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Contents 1 Background 1.1 Reacquisition 1.2 Relation to Ethnic Cleansing 2 By Country 2.1 Armenia 2.2 Belarus 2.3 Bulgaria 2.4 People's Republic of China 2.5 Croatia 2.6 Cyprus 2.7 Czech Republic 2.8 Diego Garcia's Chagossians 2.9 Finland 2.10 France 2.11 Germany 2.12 Greece 2.13 Hungary 2.14 India 2.15 Iraqi Kurdistan 2.16 Ireland 2.17 Israel 2.18 Japan 2.19 Lithuania 2.20 Norway 2.21 Palestinian territories 2.22 Poland 2.23 Romania 2.24 Russia 2.25 Serbia 2.26 Spain 2.27 Taiwan (Republic of China) 2.28 Ukraine 2.29 United Kingdom 2.30 Other 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links
The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his country of origin.
Read wikipedia (different comments about israeli and palestinians)
This principle doesn't distinguishes between people who leaved their country 2000 years ago, or more, and people who leaved their country 70 years ago.
Actually, on the approach of this poll and the question you just did could be done much better comments that I read.
I could say that public opinion is changing his mind about the classic definition of terrorism and accepting this definition to acts carried out by regular armed forces against civilian targets, and wondering if it may include acts done under the right of resistance against oppression and tyranny recognized by the United Nations, as the killing of three or four enemy soldiers with a few pounds of homemade explosive. That's because society changes of opinion under the influence of action and reaction: if for many years imposed the idea that their soldiers are saints martyred patriots, the next generation wants to break that rule and adopt a totally opposite, and so on.
The truth is that this senator's proposal is aimed to the public eye rather than Israel because if U.S. would like to modify the behavior of some Israeli units would give them a different training quietly without telling anyone and as to the financianción not care to give money to a state to buy urinals or to buy weapons because we all know that the receiving state "aid economic " distributes its own budget as their leaders want.
The question is what is intended and for which groups this senator is, if you simply disassociate USA what Israel does or impose certain standards of conduct.
If the latter is not wrong that the image of Israel is the one you see on TV and in Spain nobody understands how it is possible that a soldier with a helmet and bulletproof vest fires his rifle against a boy who throws a stone, or the few deaths caused these free flight rockets fired from the Gaza Strip have been answered so disproportionate and ineffective militarily (is the common opinion), let alone hear the Israelis say "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" when precisely should be a proportionality rule.
Israel provides the press and television news "creative" as a group of soldiers who believed that the IDF is "the most ethical army in the world", while they also provide non-credible information about the "arsenal" of "the fleet of Gaza ".
People are not stupid, and although these guys can be good people are not his generals if they do not spend some money on them in riot gear. The Spanish soldiers in missions in war zones such equipment are to avoid hostilities, gas cans are cheap. And the president begins to seem like a potential enemy for what it says and so quiet and hides.
So I would not argue his message, and it seems wrong not to change some things. But perhaps the message is sended to the international opinion to pretend Work For A Better World or just to hide the beautiful warfare of the American.
Ok, but we could discuss who really owned. Egypt occupied this area and finally recognized the State of Israel, so Gaza Strip wouldn't be what is now.
Israel had the right of occupying this area during a year after the war, as a measure of security, didn't observed the term, didn't won security, and finally all that caused the disasterous result.
And the insistance of Israel in disobey any international Laws and Agreements doesn't helps them and us.
I could express the same thing I wrote to the reader of the Bible about the fate of the Jews have had in the past 4,000 years for saying that the Jews do not need a homeland. And exactly the same the same about others not need it, but dreams of being king for a day and promoting universal brotherhood. I prefer guarantees because I do not think that could last more than a day.
As for creating power vacuum around Israel I fully agree how stupid it is. If they gived back Gaza to Egypt after winning that war now would have no nest of snakes there, nor the South Lebanon would be in the hands of Hezbollah after all the attacks.
I know, I know, England 1290, France 1306, Holland 1348, Austria 1421. Homburg 1495, Spain 1492, Portugal 1497 and all the massacres and prosecutions. Many of these countries doesn't remember their expulsions that caused a permanent Diaspora in Europe during more than a millenium.
This is the reason I don't like these kind of brief videos that try to present the history and extrapolate to the actual situation. Really if Israel have to try one of the possible scenario: -Western countries and Jews allied against muslim. -Western countries against muslim and Jews allied. -alliance of muslim and Western countries against the jews. is a very difficult choose, except the worst, the last.
But you can not forget that last scene was in that Zionism had to fight for statehood.
The British, with Lawrence of Arabia whipping the pan-Arabists against the Ottoman Turks, finally occupied Palestine (denying the Jews any right to return with absolutely no legitimacy) to leave this country in the chaos (while graciously granted this right).
That's why I wrote the creator of the poll what would happen if Arabs and Israeli finally just gave up the war or make peace. Will Western worry about losing their spearhead in Middle East? The brainless seems unconcerned, but rather think that will be unveiled to put up posters with these pictures of a fat Jew counting money (this time with a fat Arab and the backdrop of oil rigs). The same old story.
You readed my comment about Pro-Nothing but Anti-Israeli and Anti-Palestinian at once is my poll about the country list, misteriously dissapeared (ha ha).
Do you really think the Israeli Army needs U.S. training? And, what exactly you are tryng to express about the financement?
I would like to know what you're trying to express when you say that Jews Can Live In Any Country. If they leave Israel and our beautiful alliance will open all doors for them?
Before you talk to invade Mexico, the Mexicans think they can live anywhere they choose? and the Palestinians, what kind of rights they should have in your opinion? What the hell are you talking about? you have cork inside the head or a hereditary problem?
Any Western country involved should collaborate in Israeli foreign policy to know exactly what they want their leaders, in this case I agree what you wrote.
I do not think the israeli are fighting for religious reasons but for a land whose boundaries have never been defined officially by the Israeli government. What kind of support must be given the Western alliances? to support conquest plans or self-defense?
Alliances are based on reciprocity, if they attack you help me and I'll help you, but do not look for fights without telling me, at least.
COILGUN, GAUSS GUN, other names, perhaps. Electromagnetic guns, but the only became real for shoting anything have been the Rail Guns. Maybe Siberia hids many secrets.
If you use to make a weapon, the term is Gun; if not, Mass Driver is better. But I don't believe "interplanetary artillery" will be possible, only a way to launching an unmanned rocket, as I said.
Perhaps China find how to make cheapest rockets, even doing what I said it's possible. Using electromagnetism for launching the rocket makes no necessary carry so much weight. And if the use of the rocket is transporting materials (bolts, beams, pipes, pieces of light alloys) are not affected by the blow can produce it at low speed. No matter if those materials are used for orbital stations or satellites or defense systems, I only speak of the method.
These are military rail guns, not developed under the lines I exposed, slow acceleration and larger size to send biggest projectiles.
I think it's practical because the same rail guns avoids built these gigantic rocket first stage of a single use.
As a tonne of steel balls, I repeat, is not to build the biggest shotgun in the universe, but to apply the design of rail guns to launch satellites, for example, weigh less.
The problem is not the length that the rail should have acceleration to achieve a soft enough not to break the equipment inside the projectile. Space rockets and satellites have circuitry designed to resist strong vibrations and cooled in the different conditions in which they work.
It seems much more interesting to talk about the last thing that you are writing that the monothematic matter always exposed by these specimen of log with eyes, unable to differentiate concepts such "speed" and "bacon".
I thought long to use rail guns, not as a weapon, but as a method of propulsion for orbital devices, unmanned, of course.
The conventional tube artillery requires much less gunpowder than rockets and provides much longer range. You need only compare the range of a rocket and a mortar of the same size. But it causes a severe blow due to the initial acceleration and has other drawbacks that rail guns do not.
The rocket consume most of its propellant to achieve the initial acceleration. A rail gun can provide the initial thrust and does not prevent other rockets added for later phases.
That would serve to put in orbit the systems of which you speak, designing long rail guns sized progressive acceleration and also devices that speak, to resist vibration.
Well, not if there will be others interested in reading these polls and see who of us read the international press and also understands what happens. I guess you do not have read all these UNSC Ressolutions. I wonder what your tabloids would say about its contents.
Hindi, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, and anyone other religions are included? Many of them doesn't believe in a Supreme One, or a Creator, but two, many or no one.
Do not know if anyone realizes that I do not think that all these alternatives are viable, but that obviously is the business of oil money fast and it's hard to get an honest business deal with the whole network politic-economic-military is related. You just have to see how much money is left producing countries and that some moves on the stock exchange and other pockets.
But what I said about the coal business also serves the oil, the developed countries and other least developed countries are convinced that the supply must be ensured.
Better no comments about the western ethical reasons of the war of Iraq and the deep respect its leaders feel for the rights of its inhabitants and the soldiers sent there.
We can talk about all the ways to produce heat (combustion oxidation, nuclear reactions, other chemical reactions) or to take advantage of natural heat (solar, volcanoes, geysers), the possibility of applying it to steam engines or turbines connected to electrical generators, production of electric energy through other means (chemical reactions, temperature differences in a circuit, not many more may exist), the different ways to spin the rotor of a generator by other means (pelamis, windmills or watermills) drawling by animals or people through pedals or cranks, creating jobs, and lots of media transport and energy distribution resulting from all these methods and to install nuclear power plants on the moon and send electricity by these space method because there is not anyone's teeth will fall.
If you just want to have fun and fantasize.
I prefer to talk about the bussiness of energy, how can be easily addopted these other methods by the existing economic system to one where they fit, and preferably without ruining the current economic operators because otherwise the process of technical improvement will have a powerful opposition, and will hurt the economy, and will be slow.
Since the Industrial Revolution and before, technical improvements have been utilized by each sector and have been dedicated to making money in the same activity they are engaged regardless of the technical changes.
I have no personal problem with scientific research and future collaboration between technicians and manufacturers and distributors, but the best way to stop now start to apply other sources of energy is endless rambling about alternatives, especially pharaonic projects.
Today in Spain thousands of mills are installed in wasteland or other areas, the sheeps can graze anywhere without worry. No need for a single mill three miles high.
It is mandatory by law that hot water come from pipes heated by the Sun, it is necessary to produce or transport electricity or gas for heating.
Other climates allow other solutions, in France tested solar heat build up walls to build houses in the 60's. In my country it is warmer so investigated as installing air conditioning with no electricity, is not difficult.
So, the solution is the Law and the governments decissions, it's necessary to warrant safety and homollogate systems and this decissions not are industrial but politic.
I was trying to say you can not rely on one method because it is safer to have several in case something unexpected happens.
In other words, I`m afraid another tsunami could destroy pelamis and then no more electricity.
Also, coal power plants remain so, to have several ways of producing energy, to protect the coal industry and maintain the ability to supply it if necessary. It's not just the environment that should concern us.
And do not argue with who you know, his religion requires him to close his mind, he believes.
Yes, I heard something about these pelamis, but had other name. Doesn't matter, is not important if these devices are better or worse than windmills or other existant alternatives.
The most important is to decide passionless what are the better alternatives, in plural, because wrong decissions carry consequences. For example, I don't know what can another tsunami do with those pelamis.
And one day or other another tsunami will arrive to Japan, why you think now we use this japanese word, and not seaquake as traditionally?
Japan is in the Pacific Ocean, the most extense of the world, and surrounded by the Fire Belt, sismic or tsunami probabillities are absolutely more than in other countries.
I do not know the best alternative to unsafe nuclear plants, can be safe-nuclear plants or anything can move an electric generator, that's all.
But "alternative energies" is a diffused concept that allows the so called "ecologist movement" to stand in a comfortable politic position doing nothing.
When I talked about the Emperor of Japan I meant someone who can say: "this is better and cheaper than unsafe nuclear plants, build this and dismantle the rest".
I don't know your country Laws, but I am lawyer and I know the Spanish and European Laws, and nobody can poison the neighbor's garden watering yours with cyanide, even when is your garden.
You must compensate him, and I heard that in your country too.
Wind generators, an idea that it could have occurred to Sancho Panza. The spanish ecologists (leaded by the International Ecologist) have been opposing for years, citing "pollution of the landscape" and that some birds die when they hit those windmills.
GUZMAN1 Forum Posts (5,101)
RE: THREAD IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL
I don't believe in casuality.About your patient and bigotry comments are not necessary.