Unfulfilled Promise: Palestinian Family Reunification and the Right of Return

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Nabila El-Ahmed ◽  
Nadia Abu-Zahra
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
The State ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Successor State ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

This article argues that Israel substituted the Palestinian refugees' internationally recognized right of return with a family reunification program during its maneuvering over admission at the United Nations following the creation of the state in May 1948. Israel was granted UN membership in 1949 on the understanding that it would have to comply with legal international requirements to ensure the return of a substantial number of the 750,000 Palestinians dispossessed in the process of establishing the Zionist state, as well as citizenship there as a successor state. However, once the coveted UN membership had been obtained, and armistice agreements signed with neighboring countries, Israel parlayed this commitment into the much vaguer family reunification program, which it proceeded to apply with Kafkaesque absurdity over the next fifty years. As a result, Palestinians made refugees first in 1948, and later in 1967, continue to be deprived of their legally recognized right to return to their homes and their homeland, and the family reunification program remains the unfulfilled promise of the early years of Israeli statehood.

Palestinian Internal Refugees in the Galilee: From the Struggle to Survive to the New Narrative of Return (1948–2005)

2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Humphries
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Discrimination ◽  
The State ◽  
Community Activism ◽  
Internally Displaced ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Of Israel

The ongoing denial of rights to homes and land for Palestinian refugees holding Israeli citizenship is one of the starkest examples of ethnic discrimination within the State of Israel. Internally displaced Palestinians in the Galilee are not recognised internationally as refugees, unlike family and friends forced beyond the borders. This essay examines the evolution of official and unofficial Israeli policy towards the internally displaced, and discusses the changing refugee focus, a focus moving from the basic struggle to survive to community activism and frames the issue of the internally displaced as part of the wider national campaign for the right of return.

Memories for the Return? Remembering the Nakba by the First Generation of Palestinian Refugees in Syria

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anaheed Al-Hardan
Keyword(s):  
First Generation ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Oslo Accords ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
Palestinian Refugee ◽  
Temporal And Spatial ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Realities ◽  
The Way

The 1948 Nakba has, in light of the 1993 Oslo Accords and Palestinian refugee activists' mobilisation around the right of return, taken on a new-found centrality and importance in Palestinian refugee communities. Closely-related to this, members of the ‘Generation of Palestine’, the only individuals who can recollect Nakba memories, have come to be seen as the guardians of memories that are eventually to reclaim the homeland. These historical, social and political realities are deeply rooted in the ways in which the few remaining members of the generation of Palestine recollect 1948. Moreover, as members of communities that were destroyed in Palestine, and whose common and temporal and spatial frameworks were non-linearly constituted anew in Syria, one of the multiples meanings of the Nakba today can be found in the way the refugee communities perceive and define this generation.

THE VALUE OF LOVE IN THE SYSTEM OF FORMATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL MATURITY OF THE EDUCATOR

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (10(79)) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
G. Bubyreva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The existing legislation determines the education as "an integral and focused process of teaching and upbringing, which represents a socially important value and shall be implemented so as to meet the interests of the individual, the family, the society and the state". However, even in this part, the meaning of the notion ‘socially significant benefit is not specified and allows for a wide range of interpretation [2]. Yet the more inconcrete is the answer to the question – "who and how should determine the interests of the individual, the family and even the state?" The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation, which determined the goals of teaching and upbringing, the ways to attain them by means of the state policy regulating the field of education, the target achievements of the development of the educational system for the period up to 2025, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 4, 2000 #751, was abrogated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 29, 2014 #245 [7]. The new doctrine has not been developed so far. The RAE Academician A.B. Khutorsky believes that the absence of the national doctrine of education presents a threat to national security and a violation of the right of citizens to quality education. Accordingly, the teacher has to solve the problem of achieving the harmony of interests of the individual, the family, the society and the government on their own, which, however, judging by the officially published results, is the task that exceeds the abilities of the participants of the educational process.  The particular concern about the results of the patriotic upbringing served as a basis for the legislative initiative of the RF President V. V. Putin, who introduced the project of an amendment to the Law of RF "About Education of the Russian Federation" to the State Duma in 2020, regarding the quality of patriotic upbringing [3]. Patriotism, considered by the President of RF V. V. Putin as the only possible idea to unite the nation is "THE FEELING OF LOVE OF THE MOTHERLAND" and the readiness for every sacrifice and heroic deed for the sake of the interests of your Motherland. However, the practicing educators experience shortfalls in efficient methodologies of patriotic upbringing, which should let them bring up citizens, loving their Motherland more than themselves. The article is dedicated to solution to this problem based on the Value-sense paradigm of upbringing educational dynasty of the Kurbatovs [15].

Epilogue

2019 ◽  
pp. 176-182
Author(s):  
Adom Getachew
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
The State ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Institutional Form ◽  
American Imperialism ◽  
Postcolonial State ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Critical Resources

This epilogue charts the fall of self-determination and illustrates that the collapse of anticolonial worldmaking continues to structure our contemporary moment. Picking up in the immediate aftermath of the NIEO, it locates self-determination's fall in two developments—the increasingly critical orientation of Western intellectuals and politicians toward the right to self-determination as well as the diminution of international institutions like the United Nations where anticolonial nationalists had staged their worldmaking. Together the normative erosion of self-determination and marginalization of the United Nations set the stage for the resurgence of international hierarchy and a newly unrestrained American imperialism. At the same time, the critical resources of anticolonial nationalism appeared to be exhausted as the institutional form of the postcolonial state fell short of its democratic and egalitarian aspirations, and anticolonial worldmaking retreated into a minimalist defense of the state.

Chronology

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Paul Karolyi
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
Pull Out ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This is part 138 of a chronology begun by the Journal of Palestine Studies in Spring 1984, and covers events from 16 May to 15 August 2018 on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories and in the diplomatic sphere, regionally and internationally. This quarter saw the start of the ongoing months-long Great March of Return, a protest demanding the right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel. These peaceful, large-scale protests along Gaza's border were met with stunning violence from Israeli forces. The bloodiest day, which fell on the day of the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the U.S. embassy's move to Jerusalem, and the day before the seventieth anniversary of the Nakba, saw fifty-eight Palestinians dead at the hands of Israeli troops. The U.S. and Israel successfully blocked a formal investigation into these killings, in spite of multiple requests from U.N. members. As well, U.S. president Trump announced his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, after which tension and military attacks and counterattacks between Israel and Iranian forces in Syria mounted.

scholarly journals Agama dan Pernikahan Pasangan Beda Agama di Sendangmulyo Semarang

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Irma Putri Fatimah ◽  
Amirudin Amirudin ◽  
Af'idatul Lathifah
Keyword(s):  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
The State ◽  
State Agency ◽  
Life Choices ◽  
Interfaith Marriage ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Future ◽  
Interfaith Marriages ◽  
The Right

Marriage is the dream of every couple, where marriage is one of the highest forms of commitment in every individual relationship that makes love. In practice marriage is the dream of every couple to continue to be together to build a household. However, the couple's desire now becomes complicated when the marriage is difficult because of different religious beliefs. The difficulty of the legality of interfaith marriages in Indonesia becomes a polemic of interfaith couples in carrying out their marriage legally in the state or religion or even opposition faced with the family. Given this interfaith marriage today is still intensively carried out even though in practice it is difficult to implement and many problems will arise in the future. Indonesia is indeed known as a multicultural nation where differences in culture and religion are inevitable, one of which is the phenomenon of interfaith marriages now that Indonesia has five legitimate religions and streams of belief that are still developing in modern society. The state agency appointed to legalize the holy marriage is still a long-standing polemic for some couples who want to formalize their marriage. However, because they want to keep each of their beliefs, the state fully regulates marriages that require couples to marry with the same beliefs and religions, whereas in practice citizens are free to make their own choices and have the right to be happy in determining their life choices, including in terms of marriage and determining their life partners each

REPATRIATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS: INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OR STATE PREROGATIVE?

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-265
Author(s):  
Alessandra Spadaro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Family Members ◽  
North East ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Family ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Right ◽  
Foreign Fighters

AbstractThis article analyses the decisions of Belgian and Dutch courts concerning the repatriation of the family members of foreign fighters who are now detained in dire conditions in North-East Syria. The article shows that, under international law, these women and children have no individual right to be repatriated by their State of nationality, based on either consular assistance, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, or the right of return to one's own country. Nonetheless there are good reasons why States should exercise their prerogative to repatriate.

Not Every Family: Selective Reunification in Contemporary US Immigration Laws

2010 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cecilia Hwang ◽  
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Workers ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
Immigration Policies ◽  
Guest Workers ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
Migrant Families ◽  
The Family ◽  
Foreign Domestic Workers ◽  
The Right ◽  
Us Immigration

AbstractThis article questions the notion that family reunification is the cornerstone of US immigration policies and points to the violation of the right to family reunification in US law. It specifically looks at the forcible separation of legal residents from their families, including foreign domestic workers in the Labor Certification Program; US-born children with undocumented relatives, including parents and siblings; and guest workers. We argue that the growing influence of nationalist politics and big businesses trumps the interests of the family in US immigration policies, resulting in the prolonged and forcible separation of working-class and poor migrant families.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document