Now, Arabs claim the Magna Carta provides the "right to return"

In the UN on Wednesday:

The Palestine refugees would not disappear into thin air, the representative of Lebanon stated, urging that they be given the right to return. That right was acknowledged in the Magna Carta in 1215 and codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, implementing international humanitarian law and resolutions seemed to be inconvenient for Israel, but acting according to law and normality was not a matter subject to convenience.

The Magna Carta? This was a new one on me.

Since Lebanese representatives to the UN tend to simply parrot talking points, I found the likely source for this idea that the Magna Carta discusses a "right to return" all the way back from 1979.

It was mentioned in a document prepared for the UN's "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People." And the text there shows that duplicity by the "pro-Palestinian" crowd is hardly a recent phenomenon.

The document, called "An international law analysis of the major United Nations resolutions concerning the Palestine question" by William Thomas Mallison and Sally V. Mallison, states:

Historically, the right of return was so universally accepted and practiced that it was not deemed necessary to prescribe or codify it in a formal manner. In 1215, at a time when rights were being questioned in England, the Magna Carta was agreed to by King John. It provided that: "It shall be lawful in the future for anyone... to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water..."

So let's look at the Magna Carta, and see what is hidden behind the ellipses.

42. In the future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

Ah, so it only applies to people who are citizens of the country they left! And it clearly does not apply to members of a entity that is hostile to the country.This is hardly a universal "right of return," and the authors of this paper knowingly quoted only a small excerpt to promote a ridiculous assertion - one that is now confidently shouted at the UN.

It also obviously doesn't apply to descendants.

1979 anti-Israel writers were no less deceptive than their more modern counterparts.

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It says

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

But this also only applies to citizens or nationals of that country. The text was meant primarily to stop nations from preventing nationals from leaving, and the "return" clause was only added to strengthen the right of citizens to leave. See CAMERA's analysis. Regrettably, the 1963 UN document that is the source for this is not online as far as I can tell.

(UPDATE: Ian found it online, with free registration from Calameo. Ingles' entire monograph is suffused with references to the right of return of nationals. Several times during his discussion he refers to "the right of a national to return to his country." In addition he discusses the matter of how countries may strip nationality from those who leave their country over a long period of time; again the point being that he is only speaking of nationals of the country in the context of return. Beyond that, the language added to the UDHR for "return" being only to strengthen the right to leave was added by Lebanon:

The Lebanese amendment was to add, at the end of paragraph 2, the words
"and to return to his country".

In submitting his amendment, the representative of Lebanon pointed out that
the text under discussion:

"... was intended to cover all movements inside and outside of a given
State. According to that article, any person had the right to leave any
country, including his own. The ideal would be that any person should be
able to enter any country he might choose, but account had to be taken of
actual facts. The minimum requirement was that any person should be able
to return to his country. If that right were recognized, the right to leave a
country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the
assurance of the right to return. Such was the object of his amendment."

And, again, it clearly does not include descendants of those who left. That is an innovation that is uniquely applied to Palestinian Arabs, with legal arguments that are at least as specious as these are.

Read More

Why the silence over Arab persecution of PalArabs?

Khaled Abu Toameh touches on one of the major themes of this blog:

When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians?

How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves "pro-Palestinian" remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?

The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West.

How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

And where do these groups and individuals stand regarding the current debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians long-denied basic rights, including employment, social security and medical care?

Or have they not heard about this debate at all? Probably not, since the case has failed to draw the attention of most Middle East correspondents and commentators.

A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers.

The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions.

Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools?

Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country. In the past, Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were even entitled to Israeli citizenship if they married an Israeli citizen, or were reunited with their families inside the country.

Lebanese politicians are now debating new legislation that would grant "civil rights" to Palestinians for the first time in 62 years. The new bill includes the right to own property, social security payments and medical care.

Many Lebanese are said to be opposed to the legislation out of fear that it would pave the way for the integration of Palestinians into their society and would constitute a burden to the economy.

I would add that there a a couple of other major reasons why the Lebanese are almost all against granting Palestinian Arabs equal rights.

One is that there is still a legally mandated balance between Shiites, Sunnis and Christians in Lebanon. A new influx of hundreds of thousands of mostly Sunni Palestinians would upset the demographics, and Lebanon is very sensitive to demographics. In fact, Lebanon has avoided doing a census for that very reason - the fear that it will be discovered that the number of Christians has been shrinking and that Sunnis and Shiites have been growing.

The other reason is that there is still a lot of resentment over the PLO's role in the civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s and 1980s. For all the pro-Palestinian Arab rhetoric that Lebanon spews, in the end they really don't love their Palestinians at all - quite the opposite.

The Arab supposed support for their Palestinian brethren is pretty much  limited to only how they can be used as pawns to hurt Israel. When it comes to concrete actions that would actually help the Palestinian Arab economy, or their quality of life, Arab nations are far less forthcoming.

And this answers Toameh's question of why Arab mistreatment of their Palestinians is muted - because it does not have anything to do with Israel, and that is the entire reason that the Palestinian Arabs exist as a people today. Practically their entire quasi-nationhood is a fiction that was foisted upon them by decades of abuse by their Arab neighbors, and if they would have been integrated into Arab societies the way that a similar number of Jews from Arab countries were integrated into Israel, there would be very few people identifying as "Palestinian" today - and the major weapon that the Arabs have against Israel would disappear.

Modern Palestinian Arab nationalism began as a purely anti-Israel movement (Fatah and the PLO were founded in the early 1960s, before any "occupation.") It is not an expression of hundreds of years of any sort of cohesive unity - there never was any, and there still isn't. Their peoplehood is from 62 years of being treated like garbage mostly by their Arab brothers, and those are the people who should take their fair share of the responsibility to eliminate the scourge of millions of fake "refugees" that they have hosted and persecuted for six decades.

Read More