Lebanon: Palestinians may not buy land

Opponents told Aljazeera the subject is divisive among Lebanese because the acquisition of real estate by Palestinians would damage the Palestinian cause since the refugees would remain in Lebanon and never return to Palestine.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=1722cb941a3166dc


comment: <screwed again>

Sad to see that Bush logic is out there outside of the US.

had taken in the original refugees in '48 instead of urging them to leave and keeping them in camps, we (the world) would be much better off today.

policy in the arab countries since 1948... they need the issue
alive, since internally it allows for the boogey man to be
created (not that Israel is a saint by any means, they are not,
but this points once again as to why this is such a complex issue)

Why should Lebanon assist in Israel's campaign of ethnic cleansing?

To do so would be a deeply immoral way of responding to the crisis that Israel's 36 year expansionist occupation of foreign territory has created.

most of the Palestinians currently in Lebanon are from when the PLO was expelled from Jordan for trying to assasinate the king.

But do whatever you have to do to bendover backewards to support the racist policy of a non Jewish state.

answer but this is such a unmitigated propaganda that it's not worth my time.

The Arabs use them as political tools and the Israelis oppress them. No way out for them.

``The Jerusalem Post said Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri withdrew the draft legislation that would have lifted a ban on the acquisition of real estate by all non-Lebanese people who do not possess citizenship issued by a state recognized by Lebanon.''

while i am very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, i can certainly understand the reluctance of Lebanese legislators to in effect grant more rights to non-citizens. remember that in the good old USA non-citizens don't even have the right to a fair trial. (the supreme court seems to believe that constitutional protections do not always apply to non-citizens.) the state of CA just passed a controversial law that in effect allows illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. the law was opposed by a majority of the population.

the point is, OF COURSE there is a reluctance to grant more rights to non-citizens. even in this country, the "land of the free", there are restrictions, and while i don't know exactly what they are, i do support the principle that being a citizen should confer more rights (or privileges). this includes the area of property ownership.

let's not lose sight of the fact that Lebanon didn't create this problem. Lebanon is not a rich country, yet it is bearing a tremendous burden by hosting the refugees. do you think a similar law would pass in the US, under similar conditions?

and two wrongs don't make a right.

Justbecause the US is cruel to non-citizens doesn't mean that lebanon must be, or should be.

why do you disparage this country about issues of which you have no knowledge. Study immigration laws of other countries, then look at ours. Regardless, it is curious. Is this a manifestation of the new left or just your personal take?

Are you talking about the "neo-liberal" imperialistic hawks?

I'm talking about the group that has taken a rain check on reality. The group that allows anti-zionism to be used as a cover for anti-semitism, and can't tell the difference.

I know the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism: it's simple.

Anti-Zionists are against the idea that a Jewish state, meaning a state that gives special advantages to Jews, should exist in Palestine. Anti-semites believe that Jews are bad, wrong, filthy, etc.

An Anti-Zionist can be Anti-Semitic, but not all anti-zionists are anti-semites, nor are all anti-semites anti-zionists.

and two wrongs don't make a right.

however, when you unfairly single out Lebanon for criticism here, i think you're committing a third wrong. the population of Lebanon is approx 3 million. the refugee population is over 300,000 - over 10% of the entire population of the country. a comparable situation here would be if 25 million refugees showed up and demanded not only that we accept them but give them additional privileges beyond what our current laws dictate. would such a law pass? of course not.

"let's not lose sight of the fact that Lebanon didn't create this problem. Lebanon is not a rich country, yet it is bearing a tremendous burden by hosting the refugees. do you think a similar law would pass in the US, under similar conditions?"


Until Syria invaded Lebanon was the Monoco of the middle-east. They could have welcomed their fellow Arabs, given them decent homes (the worst camps are in Lebanon), and granted them, or at least their offspring citizenship. So perhaps hosting is not the correct word.

As for your second question, granting the right to buy land, have their children be full citizens, and perhaps become citizens themselves, has been the law here from day 1.

As for your second question, granting the right to buy land, have their children be full citizens, and perhaps become citizens themselves, has been the law here from day 1.

that's not quite the same question i asked. i asked if a similar law would be passed under similar conditions here. similar law meaning one granting additional privileges to a bunch of refugees who happened to show up unbidden on our borders.

similar conditions meaning that the number of refugees would be over 10% of our population. the population of Lebanon (not counting refugees) is only about 3 million. the refugees are over 300,000. a "similar" situation in this country of approx 250 million, would be having over 25 million refugees show up here, and expecting to be welcomed with additional rights... if you really think that'd happen, i think you need a reality check.