Right of return (Palestinian)

  • News
  • Thread starter tiny-tim
  • Start date
  • #1
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
"right of return" (Palestinian)

Here, from the horse's mouth:
Ismail Haniyeh said:
....
Ultimately, the Palestinians are a people struggling for freedom from occupation and the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their villages from which they were expelled. Whatever the cost, the continuation of Israel's massacres will neither break our will nor our aspiration for freedom and independence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...h-israel-must-stop-the-slaughter-1366726.html
Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …

since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …

virtually the whole international community is opposed to this, and it is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas …

Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel.

There is no way of achieving peace between two neighbours when one wants to destroy the other (the other only wanting to live side-by-side in peace in the internationally supported "two-state solution"). :frown:
kyleb said:
Egypt doesn't want to get drawn into a war with Israel …

Egypt, like Jordan, has made peace with Israel. :approve:

Egypt hates Hamas.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
205
0


As someone who has lived through Northern Island, being from the UK. I know that directly achieving terrorists achieves nothing, for every terrorist killed 3 will now replace him. You can't fight fire with fire. Sunday bloody Sunday as it is called increased IRA recruitment threefold, this will do the same. It was only when funding dried up the IRA went for a political solution. We can't do that here the US is not the major funder, Iran and other countries are, so the only solution I can see is to talk with the group that does want a diplomatic peace, and ignore and thus marginalise Hamas. If Fatah gets a state and they don't they may be more willing to talk as well.

Bloody Sunday (Irish: Domhnach na Fola)[1] is the term used to describe an incident in Derry,[2] Northern Ireland, on 30 January 1972 in which 27 civil rights protesters were shot by members of the 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment during a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march in the Bogside area of the city.[3] Thirteen people, seven of whom were teenagers, died immediately, while the death of another person 4½ months later has been attributed to the injuries he received on the day. Two protesters were injured when they were run down by army vehicles.[4] Many witnesses, including bystanders and journalists, testify that all those shot were unarmed. Five of those wounded were shot in the back.[5]

Two investigations have been held by the British Government. The Widgery Tribunal, held in the immediate aftermath of the event, largely cleared the soldiers and British authorities of blame, but was criticised by many as a "whitewash"[6][7][8] including former chief of staff to Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell.[9] The Saville Inquiry, established in 1998 to look at the events again (chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate), is expected to report in late 2009.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army's (IRA) campaign against Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom had begun in the two years prior to Bloody Sunday, but perceptions of the day boosted the status of and recruitment into the organisation enormously.[10] Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, chiefly due to the fact that it was carried out by the army and not paramilitaries, and in full public and press view.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972 [Broken])
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
kyleb


Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …

since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …

virtually the whole international community is opposed to this, and it is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas …

Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel.

There is no way of achieving peace between two neighbours when one wants to destroy the other (the other only wanting to live side-by-side in peace in the internationally supported "two-state solution"). :frown:


Egypt, like Jordan, has made peace with Israel. :approve:

Egypt hates Hamas.
What barometer are you using to gauge the position of the international community? Stacks of UN resolutions show exactly the opposite of your claim, such as this one:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/78737260dee9ec69852573ae00549b9c!OpenDocument [Broken]

The internaltional community has even offered to help Israel with the demographic issue by funding reasonable compensation for the refugees who's right of return Israel refuses to accept. It is Israel who denies the internationally supported two-state solution, and US backing that allows them the cover to do so, with Israel simply making "offers" for Palestinians to agree to a permanent state of subjugation under Israel.

And yeah, Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan, because unlike Palestinians, they aren't being held under Israeli military occupation to keep them defenceless as Israeli civilians colonize their homeland out from under them. How have you shifted the onus onto Palestinians here, when Israel's colonization of the West Bank is actively wiping Palestine off the map?

Blah blah blah. What about the rockets? Who's going to stop the rockets?
Israel's acknowledgement of Palestine's right to exist in what little territory they still hold rightful claim is the only reasonable means I see to stop the rockets. Granted, you seem intent to simply mock that option as you cast it aside in your callous disregard for Palestinians. What solution do you propose?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
378
2


Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …
If refugees were expelled by Israel

then, I am sympathetic to the Hamas cause and their struggle (putting it in simple words, then I am not against Hamas)
 
  • #5
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19


Israel's acknowledgement of Palestine's right to exist in what little territory they still hold rightful claim is the only reasonable means I see to stop the rockets.
So what is your plan for dealing with rocket attacks during the time you plan on punishing Israel? Are you going to send UN troops to stop the rockets? Or were you planning on telling Israel that they have to sit on their hands and take no action while being fired upon by the enemy, and punish them any time they do take action?

Let's suppose that you really do have a good bead on things, and Israel really is trying to make a land grab. Let's suppose they do relent and acknowledge Palestine's right to exist (whatever that means). What do you plan to do if the rockets don't stop? Are you going to send in UN troops to stop them? What if Israel goes back into Gaza to defend themselves -- are you going to to let them, or are you going to accuse them of not being sincere and continue punishing them?

Now, what if you are actually wrong about things? What if Israel really is defending itself like it claims, and what if Hamas really is out to eradicate Israel like it claims? Do you think that could even be possible?

What solution do you propose?
I don't have an solution; this is a difficult scenario, and there aren't any easy solutions... no matter what the naïve idealists like to think.

Naïve idealism is actually harmful here, because of several problems:

(1) If the truth conflicts with the ideals, it's very easy to the idealist to form opinions wildly divergent from reality

(2) Idealists all too often evaluate actions based on how they align with ideals, rather upon their actual merit

(3) It is dangerously easy to overlook consequences of actions that are at odds with the idealism
 
Last edited:
  • #6
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251


Yes … ultimately, Hamas want the return of refugees to their villages …

since there about five million such refugees, that would bring an end to Israel as a separate state …

virtually the whole international community is opposed to this, and it is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas …

Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel …
What barometer are you using to gauge the position of the international community? Stacks of UN resolutions show exactly the opposite of your claim, such as this one:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/78737260dee9ec69852573ae00549b9c!OpenDocument [Broken]
The document you link to (General Asssembly #10670 of 10 December 2007) is not a resolution … it is a summary of a debate on four resolutions, none of the texts of which are quoted.

There is nothing in this document which supports what you have said, or which contradicts me.

(have you actually read it? :confused:)

What barometer am I using to gauge the position of the international community when I say virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages?

This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side). :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
kyleb


So what is your plan for dealing with rocket attacks during the time you plan on punishing Israel? Are you going to send UN troops to stop the rockets? Or were you planning on telling Israel that they have to sit on their hands and take no action while being fired upon by the enemy, and punish them any time they do take action?
I never suggested punishing Israel for taking action against any attacks. I don't have any issue with Israel defending itself, though it would be nice if a "coalition of the willing" could help defend both sides from eachother though the disengagement process.
Let's suppose that you really do have a good bead on things, and Israel really is trying to make a land grab. Let's suppose they do relent and acknowledge Palestine's right to exist (whatever that means).
I'd much rather address the facts I've presented to demonstrate what you endeavor to write off as postulation. However, considering your compulsion to do otherwise, and your apparent denial of any understanding of Palestine's right to exist, I suppose you already know you have no reasonable grounds for such arguments.


This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side). :smile:
From the Arab Peace Plan:

b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

And fromUN General Assembly Resolution 194:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date...
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument [Broken]

And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest the document I linked previously was actually a UN resolution, but rather that it recounts the votes on a recent one in which the vast majority of the nations of the world affirmed those rights as outlined above, as the have been doing consistently over many decades now.

So, yeah, while Hamas rightly has the world against them for their terrorism, they still have the agreement of the international community in regard to their stance on the refugee issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251


bleh
are you trying to spell "help" so that it can be seen from the air? :rofl:
From the Arab Peace Plan:
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

And fromUN General Assembly Resolution 194:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date...
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument [Broken]
That was over 60 years ago … it never had any legal force, and nobody takes it seriously any more, not even the Arab League … you are missing the significance of the Arab League's phrase "to be agreed upon", as explained at the time by a Jordanian spokesman:

The http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm" [Broken] quotes the following statement from the Jordanian Foreign Minister on the Arab Peace Initiatve in 2003 (6th paragraph, my emphasis in bold, but the CAPITALS are original :wink:) …
Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem … the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened.

there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state.
(this webpage is a full text of the original Initiative, preceded by many comments on it by the Minister. Here's a more detailed extract:)
Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem TO BE AGREED UPON in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194”: For the first time, the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened. To be sure, the initiative calls for achieving a just solution of the problem in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, but it points out that the implementation of that resolution has to be agreed. The key point here is that Arabs understand well that the implementation has to be both fair and realistic, and certainly agreed upon. In other words, there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state. Fortunately, there have been many suggested solutions, at Taba and elsewhere between Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors that point to the possibility of reaching a pragmatic settlement to this problem.
So the Arab League see nothing wrong with Israel being demographically Jewish, and accepts that that characteristic is not even to be threatened.

And the Arab League "commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem". :approve:

This is totally contrary to UNGA Resolution 194 (of 1948).

If the Palestinians continue to insist on UNGA Resolution 194, they are not going to get Arab League support.

And my original statement … "This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side)" … is correct! :smile:
kyleb said:
And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest the document I linked previously was actually a UN resolution, but rather that it recounts the votes on a recent one in which the vast majority of the nations of the world affirmed those rights as outlined above, as the have been doing consistently over many decades now.

You still haven't produce a link to support what you say … there is nothing to suggest that any recent UNGA resolution requires the return of refugees (on either side). :frown:

So, yeah, while Hamas rightly has the world against them for their terrorism, they still have the agreement of the international community in regard to their stance on the refugee issue.
Nooo … the world (including the Arab League, though not of course Iran :rolleyes:) is against Hamas on both counts!

(and that is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
205
0


The document you link to (General Asssembly #10670 of 10 December 2007) is not a resolution … it is a summary of a debate on four resolutions, none of the texts of which are quoted.

There is nothing in this document which supports what you have said, or which contradicts me.

(have you actually read it? :confused:)

What barometer am I using to gauge the position of the international community when I say virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages?

This barometer: the Quartet and the Arab Peace Plan both envisage Israel's continued existence, without the return of refugees (on either side). :smile:
This is true but camp David failed because Arafat came expecting Israel to make good on its promise on a right of return it had signed up to in return for joining the UN, Sharon would not even moot it, talks broke down, shame really as they got everything 1967 borders, Golan heights etc all returned, but Israel wouldn't discuss a right to return and Arafat wouldn't discuss a treaty without at least some provision.

Undoubtedly though Israel has been resolved on both in the GC and SC on the right to return, obviously SC was vetoed by the US. But the world is pro right of return that you can be sure of, and if Israel kept its word it would be too, however they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame, so after everyone's dead then. :wink:
 
  • #10
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251


This is true but camp David failed because Arafat came expecting Israel to make good on its promise on a right of return it had signed up to in return for joining the UN, Sharon would not even moot it, talks broke down, shame really as they got everything 1967 borders, Golan heights etc all returned, but Israel wouldn't discuss a right to return and Arafat wouldn't discuss a treaty without at least some provision.
Yes (except that Israel never made any such promise, neither in 1948 nor at any other time) … Arafat's position on return of refugees was the same as Hamas's is now … but Fatah does not follow that position.
But the world is pro right of return that you can be sure of,
erm … that's wishful thinking … see my last post … even the Arab League isn't.

(the Arab League only seeks "http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm" [Broken]" that does not threaten "the demographic character of the Jewish state")
and if Israel kept its word it would be too, however they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame, so after everyone's dead then. :wink:
What treaty (with link, please :wink:) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
205
0


Yes (except that Israel never made any such promise, neither in 1948 nor at any other time) … Arafat's position on return of refugees was the same as Hamas's is now … but Fatah does not follow that position.


erm … that's wishful thinking … see my last post … even the Arab League isn't.

(the Arab League only seeks "http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm" [Broken]" that does not threaten "the demographic character of the Jewish state")


What treaty (with link, please :wink:) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return? :confused:
This was a result of meetings to discuss inclusion into the UN as well. It was a sort of geture of good faith.

In 1949, Mark Etheridge, the American representative to the United Nations Conciliation Commission (UNCC), suggested that Israel agree to grant full citizenship to the 70,000 Arab residents in the Gaza Strip, as well as its 200,000 refugees, on the condition that the Gaza Strip--then part of Egypt--be incorporated into Israel. Israel's delegation to the UNCC accepted this offer, although this plan was rejected and criticized by Arab government, the United States, and even Israel's own government
And

In the Lausanne Conference, Israel announced to the UNCC on August 3, 1949, that it would allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return into Israel. But this plan was not designed as a panacea for the refugee crisis. Rather, it was to "form a part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created ... by the United Nations." Israel reserved the right to permit settlement of the refugees only in areas in which settlement would not be detrimental to the security and economy of the state. The UNCC and Arab governments communicated unofficially at the matter. The Arab governments agreed to the offer, but under drastically different terms: that it apply only to the area originally allotted to Israel under the Partition Plan, that all refugees originating from areas allotted to Arabs or under international control be immediately allowed to return to their homes, and that Israel exercise no control over the location of resettlement. Since the parties failed to agree on the terms of the measure, it died in July of the following year, as Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett declared: "The context in which that offer was made has disappeared, and Israel is no longer bound by that offer."
The argument over the existence of such a right has perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the failure of the peace process is due, in large part, to the inability of the two parties to achieve a solution with justice for both sides.

The majority of Palestinians consider that their homeland was lost in the al-Nakba ("the catastrophe") of 1948, and see the Right of Return as crucial to a peace agreement with Israel, even if the vast majority of surviving refugees and their descendants do not exercise that right. The Palestinians consider the vast majority of refugees as victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and cite massacres such as Deir Yassin.

See also: List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing out that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would eventually cause Israel's Jewish population to become a minority, thus undermining Israel's status as a Jewish state.

Israel's first offer of any compensation for the property which had been confiscated from the 1948 Palestinian refugees only occurred 52 years later, during the 2000 Camp David Summit, and it consisted of allowing other countries to provide nearly all of the compensation. During this time, most of the original refugees had died without any compensation.

The Palestinian right of return had been one of the issues whose solution had been deferred until the "final status agreement" in the Oslo Accords of 1993. Not only was there no final status agreement, but the Oslo process itself broke down, and its failure was a major cause of the Second Intifada and the continuing violence.

Israel demanded that Arafat forever abandon the right of return for the Palestinian refugees during the 2000 Camp David Summit, and Arafat's refusal has been cited as one of the leading causes of the summit's failure.

In 2008 the Palestinian Authority issued a statement "calling on all Palestinians living abroad to converge on Israel by land, sea and air" to mark Israel's 60 anniversary by [7] There is no evidence that this occurred.
Israel lies a lot to be honest though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

Critics of the right of return argue that it is the failure of Arab states to fulfill this promise (with the exception of Jordan) which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current limbo, not Israeli policy.[19][80] Efraim Karsh asserts that "whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians' legal case, their foremost argument for a 'right of return' has always rested on a claim of unprovoked victimhood." In Karsh's view, because Palestinians were not the victims of a "Zionist grand design to dispossess them" but "the aggressors in the 1948-49 war" they are responsible for the refugee problem. Karsh does not deny that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled, but places the blame for the bulk of the exodus on Palestinian and Arab elites and leaders
He seems to have failed to note that the forces were almost entirely Syrian/Egyptian and or others, very few Palestinians actually took part in the war.

http://www.plands.org/articles/12.doc [Broken]

This link is quite interesting it makes no bones about what Zionists were trying to do, some wanting to settle and grab as much land as possible, and to exclude Palestinians from doing so. Some even more militant.

The Zionists seized the opportunity upon the imminent departure of the British and invaded the rest of Palestine in April 1948. Their forces over-ran and depopulated 213 villages and expelled half the refugees in 1948 War while Palestine was under the protection of the British Mandate government and before any Arab soldier could set foot on Palestine soil to rescue the remaining population.

In the following 6 months after the end of the Mandate and the declaration of the state of Israel, the Zionist forces swept over Palestine and depopulated a total of 531 primary towns and villages and 662 hamlets. About 900,000 Palestinians became refugees. They and their descendants are still refugees today. Instead of the allocated 55.6% of Palestine, the Zionists, now called Israelis, occupied by force of arms 78% of Palestine.

Contrary to the Israeli myths, the refugee did not leave voluntarily. By examination of the exodus of each village, studies have shown that 89% of villages were depopulated because of a variety of Israeli military actions: expulsion, assault or village occupation, 10% due to psychological warfare (the whispering campaign). Only 1% of villages left on their own volition.

The part of Palestine that became Israel has been emptied of its population, save for 15% who remained under brutal military rule for 16 years, effectively as war prisoners. The state of Israel was declared on a land of which it possessed only 8% during the British Mandate, the remaining 92% is Palestinian. The movable and immovable property of the Palestinians was confiscated under a series of pseudo-legal regulations and laws. This huge conquered real estate was made available to imported Jewish immigrants while the lawful owners of the land are denied the right to return. It was indeed the largest planned and fully executed ethnic cleansing operation in modern history. Neither the victor enjoyed his pillage, nor the vanquished resigned to his loss.

Abu Sitta, Salman, (1999), “Palestinian Right to Return: Sacred, Legal and Possible”, The Palestinian Return Centre, London, 2nd edition.
Abu-Sitta, Salman, (2000), “The Palestinian Nakba 1948: The Register of Depopulated Localities in Palestine”, The Palestine Return Centre, London, 2nd edition.
Abu Sitta, Salman, (2001), “From Refugees to Citizens at Home: The End of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”, Palestine Land Society and The Palestinian Return Centre, London.
Abu Sitta, “The Palestinian Nakba 1948”, tables.
In spite of the thick propaganda fog, Israeli historians, having access to Israeli files accumulated a solid body of knowledge about 1948 War (al Nakba) which discredited the Israeli official line and supported the long-forgotten Palestinian eye-witness experience. See Morris, Pappe’, Flapan, Shlaim, Benvenisti cited before. See also Palestinian and non-Israeli works:
Khalidi, Walid (ed), (1971), “From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem until 1948”, The Institute for Palestine Studies, Beirut.
Khalidi, Walid (ed), (1992), “All That Remains”, Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington D.C.
Palumbo, Michael, (1989), “The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People form their Homeland”, Quartet Books, Londona and New York.
Palumbo, Michael, (1990), “Imperial Israel: The History of the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza”, Bloomsburg, London.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773


I have moved these posts discussing ""right of return" (Palestinian)" to a new thread. Do not attempt to hijack this thread with personal opinions about the current military actions.
 
  • #13
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
oooh, nice job, Evo! :approve:
What treaty (with link, please :wink:) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return? :confused:
This was a result of meetings to discuss inclusion into the UN as well. It was a sort of geture of good faith.
In 1949, Mark Etheridge … suggested that Israel agree to grant full citizenship to the 70,000 Arab residents in the Gaza Strip, as well as its 200,000 refugees, on the condition that the Gaza Strip--then part of Egypt--be incorporated into Israel. Israel's delegation to the UNCC accepted this offer …
(this quote, with your next one, was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#Historic_attempts_at_resolution)

I agree that in April 1949, prior to inclusion in the UN, Israel accepted the idea of the return of 200,000 Gazan refugees to Gaza

I do not understand why Egypt (occupiers of Gaza 1948-1967) did not allow these 200,000 Gazan refugees to return between 1948 and 1967. :confused: :frown:

However, that is the only Israeli promise prior to inclusion in the UN.

I assume you are misinformed about the dates … Israel's offer (not promise) was almost four months after inclusion … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years
Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on May 11, 1949.
and, again from your quote …
The Dagda said:
In the Lausanne Conference, Israel announced to the UNCC on August 3, 1949, that it would allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return into Israel. … Israel reserved the right to permit settlement of the refugees only in areas in which settlement would not be detrimental to the security and economy of the state. … Since the parties failed to agree on the terms of the measure, it died in July of the following year …
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#Bearing_on_the_peace_process)
The argument over the existence of such a right has perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict … {goes on for 8 paragraphs :rolleyes:}
Israel lies a lot to be honest though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
Critics of the right of return argue that it is the failure of Arab states … {one long paragraph}

http://www.plands.org/articles/12.doc [Broken]

The Zionists seized the opportunity … {4 paragraphs plus bibliography}
Whatever does this have to do with either my statement "virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages", or your statement "they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame", to which I asked "What treaty (with link, please ) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return?"

You said that Israel signed a treaty including a right of return …
you now aren't even trying to maintain that there was a treaty …

and all you can refer to is a pre-UN-inclusion offer relating only to return to Gaza.

Will you please admit that you were wrong, and that Israel made no promise at any time and in any way relating to (pre-1967) Israeli territory?​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
misgfool


I don't have an solution; this is a difficult scenario, and there aren't any easy solutions... no matter what the naïve idealists like to think.
What makes you think that the current situation isn't a solution? I think that this conflict isn't about Israel and arabs in Gaza and West Bank. It's about Israel and the rest of the world. We know what Israel wants but what we don't know is what the rest of the world wants. Until that decision is made, I can't, unfortunately, see an end to this conflict.
 
  • #16
kyleb


Thank you Evo. :)

That was over 60 years ago … it never had any legal force, and nobody takes it seriously any more, not even the Arab League …
The Arab League's peacee plan refers sepcificly to that 60 year old UN resolution, as to the ongoing UN resolutions the world vote for every year, such as this recent one, adopted by a vote of 173-1-6:
Assistance to Palestine refugees
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and all its subsequent resolutions on the question, including resolution 62/102 of 17 December 2007,
...
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49634ced2.html

Furthermore, while you are right that resolution 194 never had any legal force, that is only because US veto power has been abused to block any further Security Council resolutions which could otherwise implement the conditions necessary to enforce it.
you are missing the significance of the Arab League's phrase "to be agreed upon", as explained at the time by a Jordanian spokesman:
I am well aware of the phrase, I am simply not depriving it of it's context:
Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
And again, UN General Assembly Resolution 194:
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument [Broken]

The Jordanian spokesman you quoted, along with the world at large, is well aware of Israeli's insistence of denying Palestinian "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do". Hence, the world suggests Israel acknowledge "compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property", and arrange an acceptable offer, so that a resolution can be "agreed upon" by both parties.
(and that is the primary reason why Israel sees no point in negotiating with Hamas)
As long as Israel insists on maintaining "the demographic character of the Jewish state", then the onus is on Israel to provide an alternative which can be "agreed upon" by Palestinians. Granted, Israel has shown no interest in ever doing so much, but rather insists on continuing to deprive Palestinians of civil rights, while colonizing their homeland, and killing anyone who resists along side anyone who gets in the way.

Vast military superiority, along with US diplomatic and economic backing, make Israel's conquest of Palestine possible. However, such attempts to beat Palestinians into submission is only strengthening their resolve against Israel. Hence, at least as long as Israel insists on maintaining it's conquest over what little of Palestine is left, of course Hamas will demand the entirety of Palestinian rights under international law, including the right of return.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
kyleb


I wanted to add this atricle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Islamic_and_Crusader_periods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Early_roots

While being true that once Palestine were expelled. But looking at history before 1948, it looks to me that Jews were also expelled from their lands many times. Thus making it impossible to make opinions and judge what is right.
If you look at that history, right in your first link, you'll see Jews fought along side Arabs to defend that land from Crusaders, and now you want to reach back to the Romans and further to vindicate Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of the Arabs they recently displaced?

I know it is possible to see what is right here, but you apparently lack any interest in doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,184
8,308


Furthermore, while you are right that resolution 194 never had any legal force, that is only because US veto power has been abused
What distinguishes "use" from "abuse" of a veto? Hopefully more than just whether you agree or disagree with the subject being voted on.
 
  • #19
205
0


oooh, nice job, Evo! :approve:

(this quote, with your next one, was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#Historic_attempts_at_resolution)

I agree that in April 1949, prior to inclusion in the UN, Israel accepted the idea of the return of 200,000 Gazan refugees to Gaza

I do not understand why Egypt (occupiers of Gaza 1948-1967) did not allow these 200,000 Gazan refugees to return between 1948 and 1967. :confused: :frown:

However, that is the only Israeli promise prior to inclusion in the UN.

I assume you are misinformed about the dates … Israel's offer (not promise) was almost four months after inclusion … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years

and, again from your quote …


Whatever does this have to do with either my statement "virtually the whole international community is opposed to requiring Israel to accept the return of refugees to their villages", or your statement "they say when they signed up and included a right to return in the treaty, they hadn't promised a time frame", to which I asked "What treaty (with link, please ) did Israel sign up to that included a right of return?"

You said that Israel signed a treaty including a right of return …
you now aren't even trying to maintain that there was a treaty …

and all you can refer to is a pre-UN-inclusion offer relating only to return to Gaza.

Will you please admit that you were wrong, and that Israel made no promise at any time and in any way relating to (pre-1967) Israeli territory?​
No I wont.

UN resolution 194/11. And subsequently it promised to expediate the right as a selling point for inclusion in the UN. Israel has lied numerous times about it's intentions, so I wouldn't expect it to keep it's promises anyway.

Article 11 reads:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

The exact meaning and timing of enforcement of the resolution were disputed from the beginning.

Since the late 1960s, Article 11 has increasingly been quoted by those who interpret it as a basis for the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees.

Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".[2] The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. Israel, under pressure due to its desire to become a member of the United Nations, agreed in principle to the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. After Israel became a member of the United Nations, the only attempt at any repatriation was a short-lived offer to accept 100,000 refugees, but no more. This offer, which was rejected by the Arabs, was then quickly withdrawn by Israel.[1] David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, insisted in an interview with the members of the Conciliations Commission that as long as Israel could not count on the dedication of any Arab refugees to remain "at peace with their neighbors" - a consequence, he contended, of the Arab states' unwillingness to remain at peace with the state of Israel - resettlement was not an obligation for his country.[2]

Supporters to this line of reasoning sometimes also raise the question of a large number of displaced Jews—usually quoted between 750,000 and 850,000—who could potentially qualify as refugees to which Resolution 194 could then be applied[citation needed]. That is, those refugees could insist on returning to their abandoned properties in Arab lands - a "right" most unlikely to be acceded to (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands).[citation needed]

The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution every year since the passage of UNGAR 194 which reaffirms the consensus of world opinion in support of Article 11, that the Palestinian refugees be permitted to return to their 1948 homes, and those who choose not to return should be compensated for the financial losses they suffered. Aside from some rare family reunifications which have been completely discontinued, Israel has never permitted any of the refugees to return to their homes, nor has any compensation been paid to the refugees for their property which was confiscated by Israel.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
At last I've mananged to find a copy of the Protocol of 12 May 1949 of the Lausanne Conference, which is Annex B of the http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument" [Broken] …

(There were in fact two protocols, with identical wording, one signed by the Conciliation Commission and Egypt Jordan Lebanon and Syria, and the other signed by the Conciliation Commission and Israel :rolleyes:)

(identical except that where one says "has proposed to the delegations of the Arab States and to the delegation of Israel" the other says "has proposed to the delegation of Israel and to the delegations of the Arab States")

This is the English translation … the original was in French (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c/$FILE/AAC25PR3F.pdf" [Broken]) :wink:
ANNEX B

RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATION OF ISRAEL

held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 10.30 a.m.

Present
Mr. De Boisanger (Chairman)
France
Mr. Yalcin
Turkey
Mr. Ethridge
United States of America
Mr. Azcarate
(Principal Secretary)

Dr. Walter Eytan
Israel
------
In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the delegate of Israel, on the one hand, and the members of the Conciliation Commission on the other:
PROTOCOL​

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegation of Israel and to the delegations of the Arab States that the working document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the Commission.

The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the understanding that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial adjustments necessary to the above-indicated objectives.
Lausanne, 12 May 1949

(Signed) (Signed)
Walter Eytan (Israel) Claude de Boisanger (France) - Chairman
Cahid Yalcin (Turkey)
Mark Ethridge (United States of America)
Contrary to many websites and to the impression of a previous post here, this Protocol was signed after Israel's inclusion into the UN (at 10.30am the following morning, to be precise) … Israel did not achieve votes by signing it. :frown:

The only commitments by Israel (or the Arab countries) were:

i]"the working document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the Commission"
(French original: "de prendre comme base de discussions avec la Commission le document de travail ci-joint")
and
ii]"the exchanges of views which will be carried on by the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial adjustments ("porteront sur les aménagaments
tarritoriaux
" (sic!)) necessary to the above-indicated objective"

Neither of these include any reference to UNGA Resolution 194, or to the return of refugees, unless such is in the "working document" ("document de travail") referred to in i].

Unfortunately, it is not clear what that "working document" ("document de travail") is.

It certainly isn't the text above the Protocol on the same page … most of that deals with discussions after 12 May 1949.

A clue is given by Paragraph 10 of that text, which starts by indicating that the purpose of the Protocol was to extend the original scope of the Lausanne meetings (and no, I haven't found out what that was :redface:) to include the refugee question, but concludes only by mentioning a map:
10. The Commission … the matters outstanding … particularly the refugee question and the territorial question, were closely interlinked, has urged the Arab and Israeli delegations to extend their exchanges of views to all the problems covered by the Assembly resolution.
To this end, it asked the two parties separately to sign with the commission a Protocol … which would constitute the basis of work. To this document was annexed a map …, which has thus been taken as the basis of discussion with the Commission. It is understood that any necessary adjustments of these boundaries could be proposed.
So it seems the "working document" may simply be the map, described as the "document attached" (French: "document joint") in Annex C:
ANNEX C​

Document attached to the Protocol of 12 May 1949, signed by the Conciliation Commission and the Arab delegations, on the one hand, and the Conciliation Commission and the Israeli delegation on the other.

(A map of Palestine, scale 1/750.000, showing the territory attributed to the Arab and Jewish States, respectively, by the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947.
Can anyone throw any further light on what the "working document" ("document de travail") is … without it, there is no Lausanne promise of any sort relating to Resolution 149 or return, other than an agreement to discuss?

Hi kyleb ! :smile:

Finding these sources on the Lausanne Conference (which I know you didn't mention) has taken me ages, and I don't have time right now to actually comment on them, or to reply to your post! :redface:

I'll post further, later today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
205
0


It might of been signed after, but it was offered as a carrot for Israel's inclusion into the UN. Israel later said that there was no specified time frame to act on it, so in essence they meant Israel didn't have to act on it ever. More weasel words. Probably why the UN re-ratifies every year, and has done so since its inception. It has passed 60 time now by a landslide every time.

There's often an idea that Israel is unfairly criticised, it isn't, any more than Hamas is or Palestinians generally. Israel makes a habit of changing its mind too often, and Sharon admitted several times that he never had any intention of brokering a peace treaty, on his part all the talk was just stalling.

It's often claimed Camp David broke down because of Arafat's intransigence on the right of return issue, but I think it's more likely either that Sharon wanted it to fail, or he scuppered it by refusing any talk of RoR absolutely. In that sense Both sides played an equal part in scuppering peace, as it takes two to tango.
 
  • #22
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
Protocol of 12 May 1949 of the Lausanne Conference

It might of been signed after, but it was offered as a carrot for Israel's inclusion into the UN.
What possible evidence is there of this?

And there's no "it might have been" signed after … it was signed after … it quite clearly says the 12th May 1949 (and the link to the French original is actually of a photographic copy :wink:), and it's well-known from other sources that Israel was voted into the UN on the 11th May 1949. Why are you so so reluctant to accept such an obvious truth?

If you wish to continue to maintain that it somehow affected the vote on Israel, despite the obvious causality problem (well, this is a physics forum :rolleyes:) of affecting something after the event, please produce some evidence to support your position.

Or have you just made it up?
Israel later said that there was no specified time frame to act on it, so in essence they meant Israel didn't have to act on it ever.
Have you actually read any the Protocol that you're talking about?

If you don't trust my quotations of it, you can look at them yourself on the links I've given, both to the French original and to the official English translation.

There is clearly nothing in the Protocol which commits Israel (or the Arab states) to anything other than discussion regarding refugees.

There was no promise (in the Protocol) for them to either act on or break.

If you wish to continue to maintain that there was, please quote the passage you're relying on, or some other evidence.
 
  • #23
Judy


Hamas' ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel.

There is no way of achieving peace between two neighbours when one wants to destroy the other (the other only wanting to live side-by-side in peace in the internationally supported "two-state solution").
why would it seem strange if the Palestinians (not only Hamas) hope of returning home?

when someone says " Hamas are terrorists; they want to return to their homes where Israel is living now and to do that they are for sure intending to bring destruction to poor peaceful Israel!! " now this is not logical at all .. please !!

isn't it the same that Israel did to Palestinians when they first occupied Palestine? It's exactly the same except for one small yet basic difference : Palestinians will be returning to their own lands while Israelis expelled the Paletinians and occupied a land that is not their own!!
 
  • #24
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80


why would it seem strange if the Palestinians (not only Hamas) hope of returning home?

when someone says " Hamas are terrorists; they want to return to their homes where Israel is living now and to do that they are for sure intending to bring destruction to poor peaceful Israel!! " now this is not logical at all .. please !!

isn't it the same that Israel did to Palestinians when they first occupied Palestine? It's exactly the same except for one small yet basic difference : Palestinians will be returning to their own lands while Israelis expelled the Paletinians and occupied a land that is not their own!!
It isn't a matter of intending to bring destruction or right or wrong.

It is a fact that that Israel is a theocratic democracy. If Jews wind up a minority in Israel, they either have to give up being a Jewish state or give up being a democracy.

Hence, allowing Palestinians to return to homes in Israel does mean the destruction of Israel as it exists now.

A person could say that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in a land that was previously occupied by Palestinians (logical). Regardless, the goals of the two groups are completely incompatible. Both groups cannot simultaneously achieve their goals and I don't see any hope of compromise.
 
  • #25
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,184
8,308


A person could say that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in a land that was previously occupied by Palestinians (logical).
I'm not sure it is logical. It leads to an endless cycle of "we were here firsts".
 

Related Threads on Right of return (Palestinian)

  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
68
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top