Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps?

[laughing dog]

It's not my restriction, it's what the article said. It's the PLO that was doing it.

You choose the 28 and half year old article, not me. The restriction is bullshit and bigoted.

I chose an article from a credible, non-Jewish source that described what was actually going on--something very rare these days because printing something like that now makes your organization unable to report from Palestinian areas. Saying the "restriction" is bullshit is simply denying reality, the article says what it says.

The 28 and half year old article is based on an unnamed Israeli gov’t source, and the claims about the PLO are unsubstantiated. The article explicitly ignores the settler’s and thee gov’t of Israel’s responsibility for any of the situation. So, the restriction does ignore part of reality.

Why does it matter that the article is from the early 90s, when the events in question happened in early 1970s?

If this discussion is about history, then the thread is in the wrong fora.

You think the situation is different now? Israel has long since given up on trying to fix the problem but that doesn't mean the terrorists aren't keeping them oppressed for PR purposes.

If the situation had truly remained the same, you would be able to come up with more recent source. But you have not.

We agree that terrorists are acting to exploit this situation. I have never denied that it is in the interests of the PLO or Hamas to keep people in these camps. But their plight is also due to Israel’s policies which are, in part, enacted to mollify Israeli terrorists.

 

[Arctish]

I'm still researching the build-your-own-house program in Gaza in the early 1970s. I've learned a few additional things.

The UN objected to the program because it violated UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees, and because it required refugees who voluntarily participated in the program to destroy the properties they were vacating. Many if not most of those dwellings had been built by the UN. Destroying them was not only destruction of UN property, it exacerbated the housing shortage in the refugee camps.

I have not yet found anything that supports the OP claim that

...the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

I would like to know what those tactics were. I understand Loren thinks it involved death threats but I wonder if it went much beyond peer pressure. Also, it appears the program was ended by Israel because it wasn't turning out the way the Israelis had hoped. The refugees still retained their Right to return to their former communities inside Israel despite having been resettled in Gaza and they weren't any less hostile to Zionist ambitions in the region.

Here's a really good source of information on the issue: Refugee Resettlement: The Gaza Strip Experience. It appears to be pretty comprehensive. It's chock full of proper citations and footnotes listing the source documents, and clearly identifies which claims the author is making based on her own research.

As always, I'm interested in seeing what other information is out there, so please post links to anything y'all have found.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm still researching the build-your-own-house program in Gaza in the early 1970s. I've learned a few additional things.

The UN objected to the program because it violated UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees, and because it required refugees who voluntarily participated in the program to destroy the properties they were vacating. Many if not most of those dwellings had been built by the UN. Destroying them was not only destruction of UN property, it exacerbated the housing shortage in the refugee camps.

I have not yet found anything that supports the OP claim that

...the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

I would like to know what those tactics were. I understand Loren thinks it involved death threats but I wonder if it went much beyond peer pressure. Also, it appears the program was ended by Israel because it wasn't turning out the way the Israelis had hoped. The refugees still retained their Right to return to their former communities inside Israel despite having been resettled in Gaza and they weren't any less hostile to Zionist ambitions in the region.

Here's a really good source of information on the issue: Refugee Resettlement: The Gaza Strip Experience. It appears to be pretty comprehensive. It's chock full of proper citations and footnotes listing the source documents, and clearly identifies which claims the author is making based on her own research.

As always, I'm interested in seeing what other information is out there, so please post links to anything y'all have found.

The UN isn't a good source here. The problem is the information is coming from those who have a vested interest in the problem continuing. To solve the problem is to put themselves out of a job.

 

[Arctish]

I'm still researching the build-your-own-house program in Gaza in the early 1970s. I've learned a few additional things.

The UN objected to the program because it violated UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees, and because it required refugees who voluntarily participated in the program to destroy the properties they were vacating. Many if not most of those dwellings had been built by the UN. Destroying them was not only destruction of UN property, it exacerbated the housing shortage in the refugee camps.

I have not yet found anything that supports the OP claim that

...the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

I would like to know what those tactics were. I understand Loren thinks it involved death threats but I wonder if it went much beyond peer pressure. Also, it appears the program was ended by Israel because it wasn't turning out the way the Israelis had hoped. The refugees still retained their Right to return to their former communities inside Israel despite having been resettled in Gaza and they weren't any less hostile to Zionist ambitions in the region.

Here's a really good source of information on the issue: Refugee Resettlement: The Gaza Strip Experience. It appears to be pretty comprehensive. It's chock full of proper citations and footnotes listing the source documents, and clearly identifies which claims the author is making based on her own research.

As always, I'm interested in seeing what other information is out there, so please post links to anything y'all have found.

The UN isn't a good source here. The problem is the information is coming from those who have a vested interest in the problem continuing. To solve the problem is to put themselves out of a job.

The problem is you know nothing about the build-your-own-house program the CSM article mentions, and you don't care. You're not interested in discussing facts. You want to blame the PLO for the persistence of the refugee problem and you'll use any unsubstantiated rumor to do it.

I'm interested in discussing the facts, so I'm going to keep researching the program. Later today I intend to look into the footnotes in the article I posted. I'll let you know if I find something there.

 

[Arctish]

I found another informative source with lots of citations and footnotes: THE RESETTLEMENT OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES OF THE GAZA STRIP

Section 5-4 on the Criteria for Relocation focuses on the same program the CSM article mentioned. It lists the same requirements that other sources noted:

Any refugee living in a camp is eligible to apply through the Housing Department in
the Civil Administration in Gaza to obtain a house or a plot of land in the Israeli sponsored
housing projects. Applications could be submitted to the military government through the
mayor in hislher area. This open procedure emerged in the late seventies, to distinguish it
from the first period of the housing projects in which relocation was done in complete secrecy
and carried out by a "backdoor" device. 1
Several conditions must be met in order for a refugee family to relocate to the housing
project: A down-payment; residency in a refugee camp; and demolition of the camp shelter.

The problems with those requirements are obvious:

The land upon which the housing projects were set up is considered by the authorities
to be the government's land. However, many Palestinians raise the question of the legality of
the purchase of land by a refugee family from an occupying authority which does not have clear
title to the land. That is particularly crucial as this issue concerns the refugees' ownership of
this land in the eventuality of a settlement. As one refugee from the SR project said in response
to the question of whether he was grateful to the government for offering new housing, "We
have no reason to be grateful. The government has done nothing except to allow us to build
houses on land that is not theirs to sell anyway. By using it we stop Israel using it " (JP, 19
October, 1988).

The second condition for relocation to a housing project is residency in a refugee camp.
Housing in the projects is not open to refugees who are not currently living in a refugee camp.
Furthermore, a family residing in a refugee camp can only move to the housing project nearest
their camp. For example, a family living in the SC can only move to the SR project. The
family cannot choose to move to al-Amal project in Khan Yunis.

A third condition set by the authorities for relocation to the housing projects is that
the camp shelter of the family be demolished. The demolition of the shelter is generally
carried out by the families themselves. The shelter is inspected by the authorities, who have
no direct involvement in the demolition, and should be destroyed within twelve months of the
agreement. In consultation with the authorities, UNRWA are informed of demolitions done so
that the "facts" of the demolition can be properly recorded. The demolition of the shelter
weakens the structure of the remaining adjacent dwellings.

So I think we can affirm that the build-your-own-house program had some problematic restrictions. It was only for those refugees living in specific camps. They could only move to the resettlement location nearest their current location, not the one nearest their former home or their preferred place of residence. Their new house would be built on land they would not have legal title to because Israel didn't have legal authority to transfer it to them, and they could only live there if they demolished the residence they were leaving behind, thereby damaging other people's homes and gutting their old neighborhoods. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of forced relocations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I think we can affirm that the build-your-own-house program had some problematic restrictions. It was only for those refugees living in specific camps. They could only move to the resettlement location nearest their current location, not the one nearest their former home or their preferred place of residence. Their new house would be built on land they would not have legal title to because Israel didn't have legal authority to transfer it to them, and they could only live there if they demolished the residence they were leaving behind, thereby damaging other people's homes and gutting their old neighborhoods. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of forced relocations.

Even if you are right that doesn't address the issue--the PLO was keeping them from accepting the offer.

 

[Arctish]

So I think we can affirm that the build-your-own-house program had some problematic restrictions. It was only for those refugees living in specific camps. They could only move to the resettlement location nearest their current location, not the one nearest their former home or their preferred place of residence. Their new house would be built on land they would not have legal title to because Israel didn't have legal authority to transfer it to them, and they could only live there if they demolished the residence they were leaving behind, thereby damaging other people's homes and gutting their old neighborhoods. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of forced relocations.

Even if you are right that doesn't address the issue--the PLO was keeping them from accepting the offer.

Have you looked into this claim at all ?

Have you tried to find documentation of PLO activities or statements regarding the resettlement plans Israel was pushing in the 1970s, or old news articles about specific incidents, or interviews with Palestinian refugees talking about their personal experiences?

Or are you just bullshitting again?

 

[laughing dog]

So I think we can affirm that the build-your-own-house program had some problematic restrictions. It was only for those refugees living in specific camps. They could only move to the resettlement location nearest their current location, not the one nearest their former home or their preferred place of residence. Their new house would be built on land they would not have legal title to because Israel didn't have legal authority to transfer it to them, and they could only live there if they demolished the residence they were leaving behind, thereby damaging other people's homes and gutting their old neighborhoods. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of forced relocations.

Even if you are right that doesn't address the issue--the PLO was keeping them from accepting the offer.

Allegedly true 28.5 years ago that the PLO was keeping people from accepting an offer they would not have accepted anyway.

I wonder what prompted that lousy offer in the first place? Hmmm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I think we can affirm that the build-your-own-house program had some problematic restrictions. It was only for those refugees living in specific camps. They could only move to the resettlement location nearest their current location, not the one nearest their former home or their preferred place of residence. Their new house would be built on land they would not have legal title to because Israel didn't have legal authority to transfer it to them, and they could only live there if they demolished the residence they were leaving behind, thereby damaging other people's homes and gutting their old neighborhoods. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of forced relocations.

Even if you are right that doesn't address the issue--the PLO was keeping them from accepting the offer.

Allegedly true 28.5 years ago that the PLO was keeping people from accepting an offer they would not have accepted anyway.

I wonder what prompted that lousy offer in the first place? Hmmm.

If people wouldn't have accepted it anyway the PLO would have no reason to stop people from accepting it.

Are you saying the Christian Science Monitor is no good? This isn't something where one side is the Christian one, in my experience they were quite good so long as their religion wasn't a factor.

 

[laughing dog]

Allegedly true 28.5 years ago that the PLO was keeping people from accepting an offer they would not have accepted anyway.

I wonder what prompted that lousy offer in the first place? Hmmm.

If people wouldn't have accepted it anyway the PLO would have no reason to stop people from accepting it.

First, your evidence is 28.5 years old. You have presented no evidence that the PLO continues to prevent anyone. Second, your 28.5 year old evidence is uncorroborated statement from an Israeli official - hardly an unbiased source. Third, why would any sane person believe that everyone would take such a crappy deal?

Are you saying the Christian Science Monitor is no good? This isn't something where one side is the Christian one, in my experience they were quite good so long as their religion wasn't a factor.

Reading comprehension fail. I am saying the story is based on uncorroborated statements from an Israeli official - a source that is not unbiased.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that Israel wanted the old places torn down in this deal makes perfectly good sense--the objective was to relocate people from the refugee camps to proper homes. If the old places aren't torn down there's no benefit.