ترجم الموضوع الى العربية
 ترجم محتوى الصفحة الى الانكليزية باستخدام خدمة كوكول - الموقع غير مسؤول عن الترجمة

UNRWA

Marwan Younso
restauro1984@yahoo.com
2015 / 2 / 16

UNRWA organization, a ghost homeland´-or-a bribe?

Following the 1948 Arab-Israel conflict, UNRWA was established by United Nation General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) the 8th of December 1949 to carry out --dir--ect relief and working programs for Palestinian refugees.
This resolution aimed to find alternative entity for Palestinian people who were displaced from their own homeland--;-- the activities of this organization are in the neighboring countries, actually the in--dir--ect target of this organization to integrate the Palestinian refugees in the Arabic countries by offering them some assistance which looks like bribe.

Different concepts for refugees, a protection for Europe, duplicity:

According to the Geneva Convention 1951 and its protocols, the refugee is the person who can’t go back to his homeland because he has owing well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social groups´-or-political opinions, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of protection of the country,´-or-who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such event, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. However, this definition was done not mean we could call the Palestinians displaced from their own homeland (refugees), because a specific protection scheme was created which explicitly and internationally excluded them from the international law regime established by the 1951 Geneva Convention, as long as they continue to receive assistance from UNRWA. Under European law, article 12(1) (a) of Qualification --dir--ective 2011/95/EU law concerns in practicing the fate of displaced Palestinians who benefit from the protection of the assistance of UN agencies other than the UNHCR. Article 12 (1) (a) does not entail an unconditional right to refugee status as confirmed by the CJEU in judgment of the 17th of June 2010 (C-31/09). But plausibly the Palestinian refugees can give up the assistance of UNRWA and apply for asylum according to Geneva Convention 1951 and getting the protection, unfortunately the truth is different.
In its judgment of the 19th of December 2012 (C-364/11) the CJEU ruled that article 12 (1)(a) must be interpreted as meaning that the cessation of protection´-or-assistance from organs´-or-agencies of United Nations other than the UNHCR for any reason includes the situation in which a person who, after actually availing himself from such protection of assistance, ceases to receives it for a reason beyond his control and independence of his volition, so the EU could protect itself from the expected flow of Palestinians who have in pocket UNRWA documents, but we should compare all those obstacles with the generous facilities of the Jews in general and Israeli in particular to move and seat wherever due to Divine Right.
I must mention that all those articles are applied for Palestinians who were moved from their own land which is called now Israel, and for the Palestinians who were moved from the West Bank and the Strip of Gaza after 1967, and here we can notice the hidden denial to the Palestinians and their basic rights.

Voluntary return to where?

The agreements of Oslo recognized some rights for Palestinian refugees to come back to their land (just in the strip of Gaza and the West Bank). However, they couldn’t get this right because of the rejection of the Israeli authorities and the withdraw from Arabic land occupied after 1967, so all those agreements were useless, and the national Palestinian authority in Ramallah is not recognized as state so those refugees lost another right to them, the Palestinian refugees can’t apply the voluntary return to their own country (Palestine) because of political reasons, they have the right to go back just to their alternative entity UNRWA.
Obviously the European decision to remove a third country national from their territory, Member States must respect the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Art. 19(2)). This principle requires that no person should be sent to a country where they may be subjected to the death penalty, to torture´-or-to inhuman´-or-degrading treatment´-or-punishment. Their decision can be challenged only at national levels through the competent authorities, including the courts.




Add comment
Rate the article

Bad 12345678910 Very good
                                                                                
Result : 90% Participated in the vote : 9