The UN definition of refugee has never been applied elsewhere to any other group. It's a special carve out in the way refugees are treated, so as to support the Arab war against Israel. The legislation merely brings the counting of Palestinian refugees within the same framework as other groups.

refugees

Even if true, it would only show that certain politicized stiutations obtain different treatment.

and not about 'Israel' as some wish for us to believe

receiving "perma-refugee" status.

The Thai don't like them and have been trying to force them to go back to Laos.

it's been nearly 65 years as refugees however it should be noted that while there 4.5 million Palestinian refugees there are 11+million Palestinians

there are only about 30,000 refugees. The millions you claim have wrongly been classified as refugees and wrongfully kept in camps by their own people, and with the conivance of the world community.

meaning that most Palestinians are citizens of some country and by their own people what in the world are you talking about?

and the true number of about 30,000. That's a big difference don't you think?

but it is nice to you promote the attrition method of solving the problem just stall long enough and they'll all be dead problem solved right?

The real reasons are:

1. So that they can be a weapon to use against the existence of the Jewish State of Israel.
2. So that the Arab states can avoid their responsibilities as co-aggressors in the war against Israel.
3. So that the Palestinians can avoid their responsibility for starting the war that made them refugees iin the first place.

None of these justify disparate treatment. So why should the US support disparate treatment that merely perpetuates and exacerbates the problem?

By the way, all Palestinians today have been born with a state. Most have merely been denied their right to citizenship within the state of their birth. How is that Israel's fault?

which directed it to allow the return of the Palestinian refugees

UNGAR 194 is a General Assembly Reesolution. Whatever it says is non-binding. It doesn't direct anything, because the UNGA has no power to direct governments to do anything. Therefore, 194 can't be violated. It can only be ignored. Which it should.

Of course, 194 doesn't actually direct Israel to allow the refugees to return. But even if it did, so what?

That was added later after it became apparent that Israel wasn't going away.

how many those returning were actually born in Israel?

Palestinians are not mentioned. It could just as well apply to Jews from the mideast who became refugees and went to Israel.

not born in Palestine

If anything it would justify the return of Jews to the various Arab countries from which they were driven out. It doesn't say anything about letting Jews into Israel. But there are no Jewish refugees any more. they were all resettled in Israel, the US and elsewhere. Which is what should have happened with the Arabs of Palestine. Except the world chose to pen them up in camps instead. Further, the Law of Return applies to Jews because they are Jews. Not because they are considered refugees.

but thanks for your answer none the less, 194 applied to Arab refugees and Israel has steadfastly refused to comply allowing the problem to grow to the proportions it is today and pointing the finger elsewhere, it simply doesn't work

...who were expelled from those areas by Jordanian forces after the green line was established. They were born in Palestine too, making them Palestinian.

Pro-Palestinian folks claim that because the GOI tacitly allows the settlement project's "natural growth" that demonstrates an unwillingness to negotiate in good faith.

What people don't like to talk about is the implicit assumption with that argument, namely that the Palestinians, who as you state number nearly 11 million, can't possibly allow a couple hundred thousand Jews to live in their future state, because they are, you know, Jews.

The real main impediment to a two state solution is the repeated demand that (per un res 194) the Israelis allow 5 million Palestinian descendents of refugees to move to Israel. It's the ultimate deal breaker and why there will never be a resolution to the conflict so long as that demand is put forth. Further, as time goes by the decendents will continue to grow exponentially, making the situation even less likely to be resolved.

and once again the arrogant claim that the entire Palestinian refugee population would descend on Israel because as we're seeing right now Israel treats non-Jewish refugees oh so well especially in liberal Tel Aviv

Those not willing to be weapons of Arab regimes to flood Israel will be threatened. They do not have a choice as individuals in the radical authoritarian regimes they now dwell in. If they had such a choice, the overwhelming majority would choose right now to become citizens of their respective homelands. A choice that the world (UN, NGO's, mideast, etc..) is not allowing them. An ongoing evil.

would force Palestinian refugees to go to Israel? and the NGO's and the UN ect would back this up? okay if you say so

Here's the PA ambassador to Lebanon:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x364112#364112

And here's Abbas:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x364112#364114

and people who have not should read those threads should indeed read them
but considering your beliefs it must anger you that Obama and other world leaders continues to deal with Abbas as though he actually wants a Palestinian state and Obama in particular supports continuing funding the PLO/PA

...and not the phased plan to destroy Israel?

As to Obama and other world leaders who know they're being used by Abbas, I'd say OIL is the #1 reason the peace charade continues. If the Palestinians were called out, imagine the repercussions.

but you seem to disregard the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which Israel refused out of hand

Palestinians are their proxies, just as Hezbollah is Iran's and Syria's proxies.

The Arab Peace Initiative first calls for Israel to withdraw completely behind 1967 lines before anything else is "considered" (whatever that means.

Really now, what does Israel have to lose - right?

countries and Israel but sadly holding on to territory mean more to Israel than peace?

here is the initiative

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

...."consider" going ahead with the peace process. I can only assume you are for that too, as well as full RoR. No negotiations necessary.

And explained that "full normalization" was the responsibility of the me states, they could implement this part of the arab peace initiative using whatever timeline that suited them.

Even with moussa "walking back" this major part of the offer it was not enough for the muslim hardliners so very quietly the text was changed from "full normalization" to "normal relations" a couple weeks later.

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Refugee status had never been granted to the children and grandchildren of refugees prior to UNRWA. The reason for it is to maintaint the refugees as a weapon against Israel.

“even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

“How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early [to say], but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved [with] the acceptance of all.” Interview with the Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon in the Daily Star, September 15, 2011. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1vorhFGdW

The purpose of multi-generational refugees status is to keep alive the Right of Return and allow the Palestinians to destroy Israel demographically, as well as to maintain the Palestinians in a radicalized state. Even if multi-generational refugee status applied to Tibetans or Hmong (which I really doubt), the concept is so rarely applied, that it would have to be for political reasons for those groups as well.

but it is interesting to see the Palestinian refugee/UN conspiracy to destroy Israel theory promoted but in my opinion it has much more to do with Israel's continued refusal to comply with UN resolution 194 which was passed in 1948

And its reasoning is crap. It says that it would be viewed as the US prejudging the issue. Except there is no issue. The whole point of having a special definition of Palestinian refugees is to maintain the so called right of return. The right of return, aside from not actually existing, is not something that can ever be achieved by negotiation. Its admission by Israel would be tantamount to Israel admitting it had no legitimacy. Its implementation would mean the end of the Jewish state. The Jews are not going to voluntarily agree to cut their own throats. In other words, the demand for a right of return is a continuing call for a war to the death against the Jews. That this war demand has been adopted by the UN as UNGA 194 gives it no greater legitimacy. I suspect that what is really going on is the usual State Department favoring of the Arabs over Israel. They do have the oil after all, and they are a much larger market. But don't pretend that maintaining the fiction of Palestinian refugee status does anything to advance the cause of peace. It doesn't and isn't intended to. By treating the Palestinians the same as other refugee groups, the Senate bill goes further toward resolving the conflict than all of the UN resolutions combined.

it says so much about the mind set at work here thank you it clarifies things

In particular. The Arabs didn't try to drive out Arab immigrants to Palestine; only the Jewish immigrants (and the long time Jewish residents). They were trying to destroy a Jewish state. How else is there to describe what happened? What other honest way is there to say it besides that the Palestinians initiated a war against the Jews of Palestine?

also you now switch off between Arabs and Palestinians but Deir Yassin happened first the massacre of Palestinian by preIDF Jewish forces

What are you talking about? The Palestinians (or more accurately, the Arabs of Palestine who now cfall themselves Palestinians) began the war against the Jews in December, 1947. The battle for Deir Yassin took place in April, 1948, some five months later.

(Arab) were killed along with 5 adults 4 days later by Jewish forces thanks for the info

This page was last modified on 4 June 2012 at 09:30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_War#Table_of_killings_and_massacres

Not to mention ignoring the vast bulk of the written histories of the war. To start with this is only a listing of massacres, not attacks. In other words, it's almost totally irrelevant to the question of who started the war. Second, the source itself says that it isn't exhaustive. Third, there isn't anything in the source that says that no one was killed in the convoy attack (which came first, and was by the Arabs). It doesn't say anything. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. fourth, that's still an attack that occurred before the Jews are listed as attacking the Arabs. So my point is still made that the Arabs of Palestine started the war. Fifth, it's Wikipedia. And you're seriously going to put this up there as if you're scoring points? All you've done is mark yourself as someone who doesn't understand how to use sources and to not take seriously.

scoring points? which one of us is saying "but they started it, we have the right to forever punish all of them for it?"

that is fact and that it came 4 days after an attack on Jewish forces who were in the Arab sector of Palestine does make it appear retaliatory sorry if you do not like facts

Arab massacres against Jews in Palestine date back to the 20s. There is no question as to who instigated the violence.

but no one has complied with that resolution in any respect, EXCEPT for Israel, who has at least implemented some of its articles. Why is it that you expect Israel alone to be the sole country responsible for adhering to a resolution that isn't even binding by law anyway?

Now, the resolution asks for the return to take place “at the earliest practicable date." Considering that there is still a conflict raging, the time has not yet come to pass, meaning that Israel is not even necessarily in violation of this clause. What about compensation for all of the Jewish refugees? That number is in the billions of dollars. When can we expect to hear any of the Arab states begin to suggest a willingness to fulfill their side of this agreement in even the slightest way?

Unless we see a mutual agreement to enforce these statutes then it seems somewhat biased to expect only ONE party to fulfill EVERY one of the points. No other state has even taken on one to date.

<snip>

"Palestinians in the occupied territories, the diaspora and in refugee camps protested earlier this month on the 64th anniversary of the Nakba, commemorating the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians by nascent Israeli forces. Palestinians were sending a message to the world that the right to return to their homes would not be forgotten, and that millions of refugees are awaiting a solution.

One senator from Illinois, though, wants to write off those millions and change who is classified as a Palestinian refugee. Mark Kirk, a hawkish Republican whose political career has been boosted by right-wing Israel advocates, is leading a drive to fundamentally redefine who a Palestinian refugee is in the eyes of the United States.

Critics see the move as just one step in a larger strategy to take the issue of refugee rights for Palestinians off the negotiating table, and to cut funding from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency that assists Palestinians. One senior Senate aide who helped craft the amendment told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “this will have major implications for future negotiations over final status issues with regard to refugees.”

In a statement, UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness said that “while UNRWA is following the debate in DC very closely, (the agency) does not comment in public about the internal workings of the legislatures of member states.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/israel-lobbys-favorite-senator-tries-to-erase-palestinian-refugee-status-for-millions.html


Meanwhile...

Kirk's ex-wife files FEC complaint questioning campaign payments

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,4660129,full.story

See a picture of him here:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/welcome-to-mondoweisss-first-staffers-allison-deger-and-alex-kane.html

Apparently he has been a "tireless contributor" to Mondoweiss for several years.

If by the standard that is applied to other groups, those people aren't refugees, then isn't the disparate treatment a problem? Hasn't the UN in fact helped to perpetuate and expand the general misery of these people, in cahoots with there own supposed Arab allies? By beginning the process of treating these people as other groups, the Senator's proposed legislation does more to solve the conflict in the Middle East than all of the UN's resolutions combined.

...living in subpar apartheid conditions, then it must be progressive.

Therefore, it's perfectly moral and humane for millions of refugees to be used as political pawns. For however long it takes.

This is a pro-Palestinian POV, of course.

You don't see human rights NGO's fighting it, do you? So it must be okay...

It does sshow you where the UN and the NGO's really are.

What the UN, MSM, and NGO's have done is about a 100x worse. I think of the al-Dura fraud as well. That really got Intifada 2 going and obliterated the peace process entirely. I'm told Israel is responsible, however. And don't even get me started with the ongoing attempts by all the above to censor out and cover for endemic Jew hatred throughout the Palestinian territories and mideast.

<snip>

"Last week we did a couple of reports on the Senate's unanimous passage of a rightwing Republican's amendment that would strip millions of Palestinian refugees of their refugee status. Well neocon Daniel Pipes says he (and Steve Rosen formerly of AIPAC) helped drive Congress:

The fetid, dark heart of the Arab war on Israel, I have long argued, lies not in disputes over Jerusalem, checkpoints, or "settlements." Rather, it concerns the so-called Palestine refugees....

I am proud to report that, in part based on the work carried out by the Middle East Forum's Steven J. Rosen and myself over the past year, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on May 24 unanimously passed a limited but potentially momentous amendment to the $52.1 billion fiscal 2013 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill."

Nowhere does he say that he "drove the Senate" to do anything.

His only claim is that it was "in part based on the work" they did.

... the meme that "you know who" control the US Government.

I'm sure that Israel would be much more willing to discuss ROR for 30,000 geriatrics as opposed to 5 million people. I know for a fact that Israel has very good, state-of-the-art aged care facilities and universal health care.

and the fact that these Arabs are too old to reproduce is the cherry on the sundae
and the fact that it was Daniel Pipes and Steve Rosen makes all the sweeter I'll wager, tell us are they personal hero's of yours?

It included some serious changes by Senator Patrick Leahy (D):

Leahy then proposed a reworked amendment, requiring the report to indicate the approximate number of people receiving aid from UNRWA over the previous year who had been displaced by the 1948 conflict, and the number of those who were their descendants. The report would also have to indicate “the extent to which the provision of such services to such persons furthers the security interests of the United States and of other United States allies in the Middle East.”

Leahy’s language was accepted and added to the fiscal year 2013 bill, which was then approved by the committee. Overall the bill totals $52.1 billion – $2.6 billion less than the administration’s request and $1.2 billion less than the FY2012 appropriation.

Leahy and Pipes could not be farther apart with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict incidentally.

Is Leahy a hero of yours?

has no context in regard to either comment

I think you'll see the connection.

IOW solving the problem by stalling and attrition?

But while Leahy may not be a hero of mine at least he's a Democrat

...they will, while watching them rot away in camps under apartheid conditions in Lebanon and other nations?

...for generations when there's no chance they're going to Israel?

Why are you in favor of that?

In order for that to work, there needs to be a compromise reached with respect to those whose grandparents or great-grandparents lived in what is now Israel.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents may have lived there?

Maybe you should talk to someone.

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 06:23 AM - Edit history (3)

and your comment about "talking to someone" is interesting as I am 'talking' to you and you are someone, right?

now if you do not understand I had 10 greats that's 20 years for each generation since the Roman enforced diaspora but actually it would be much more than that some like 100 generations since the Roman enforced diaspora, however 100 greats would be a bit too much typing for me but I would hope you get the point

Almost no one can trace their family back that far.

And almost everyone lives somewhere other than where those ancestors were born.

Most Jews for instance have been driven out of every land they have ever called home.

Starting a new life in a far and distant land has often been a mark of pride.

<snip>

"In the wake of a Senate amendment requiring the United States to quantify how many Palestinians receiving U.S. aid were displaced after the Israeli War of Independence and how many are only descendants of such refugees, a State Department official told The Cable that the U.S. considers the descendants to be actual refugees.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk’s amendment, which unanimously passed the Senate Appropriations Committee May 24, has been strongly opposed by the State Department. Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides, in a letter to U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), said Kirk’s amendment “would be viewed around the world as the United States acting to prejudge and determine the outcome of this sensitive issue.”

Nides affirmed the State Department’s view on the number of Palestinian refugees by emphasizing in his letter that the UN and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) “provides essential services for approximately 5 million refugees,” The Cable reported."

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/30/u-s-state-department-affirms-support-for-5-million-palestinian-refugees/

problem for Israel has failed-good

...be allowed into Israel? Or who should wait, perhaps, several more decades for the *possibility* such an event *could* occur?

both of which would go along way towards solving the problem, albeit I do understand why you'd apparently prefer attrition and resettlement in Arab or any other country save Israel or Palestine for that matter

The RoR and a peaceful solution are mutually exclusive.

... if your definition of peace involves the eventual destruction of Israel.

Not that that's a surprise, given your propensity here to delegitimize Israel at every opportunity.

Everyone knows full well what the RoR means. Even Mahmoud Abbas said that millions returning would end Israel.

others seem to believe the 2 are mutually exclusive of each other why is that? Or is it that you believe that these Palestinians whom will chose Israel because life there would be so very good and comforting to them over their own country?

...when a Palestinian state is established.

And that's a gamble Israel should be willing to risk, correct?

I don't think you're willing to admit they're refugees 64 years later b/c that's exactly what Arab regimes intended (to use these people as pawns to flood Israel).

You think all the Arab regimes are just going to let these people choose where they want to live after 64 years of a plan that so far has been implemented almost flawlessly?

because he must if the US is still giving money to the PLO/PA under Abbas control

...in order to one day flood Israel and destroy it?

Israel refusing to comply with resolution 194 for over 60 years? and you ducked my questions about Obama why?

As to the UN and 'Arabs' WRT the RoR, there is nothing in UNGAR194 for Israel to comply with. It's a suggestion, not a mandate.

WRT Obama, I don't know what the deal is there. It may be as simple as Obama thinking everything can be solved with diplomacy.

and if not diplomacy then what will solve this or do you believe the occupation and colonization of the West Bank is forever sustainable?

....partition plan was rejected. Obama also thought diplomacy could work with Syria and Iran. That didn't turn out either. Diplomacy works between rational actors. With the irrational, not so much.

As to the occupation, you know where I stand. I don't have a problem with Barak's recent comments WRT unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. It's you and your like minded comrades on I/P who are for the status quo and a continuation of the occupation.

for me it is hard to get behind something sight unseen so to speak and in the week that has pasted since he made this comment nothing else has been said, I;m inclined to believe he was simply 'making noise' for the media

as I said both a Palestinian state and RoR not one or the other, both you do understand that right?

and considering how welcoming Israel its towards minority refugees and its own minorities special laws just for their commemorative dates ect I am sure Palestinian refugees could hardly wait to go to such a warm welcoming country as Israel especially when you consider that they would have a Palestinian state too

...could become a citizen of Israel. You are in favor of the same WRT Palestinian refugees who want the same.

I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

to refuse any Palestinian for reasons of security or criminal background just as it does Jews

So they will remain refugees indefinitely.

the Democratic POTUS supports this because of Palestinian oil?

The POTUS doesn't support RoR. But like any other world leader, including our past Presidents, mideast OIL plays a central role. This is an Arab/Israel conflict, not just I/P. I think Obama believes diplomacy can solve everything, including the Arab/Israel conflict.

allowed to live in and then make the claim that it is all because of Arab oil, the very same Arabs you also claim will settle for nothing less than Palestinians "flooding" Israel

Maybe Obama thinks the Palestinians can be negotiated out of demanding RoR, who knows?

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I will attempt to explain so that all can understand.

1. Israel is being asked to agree that all people who now call themselves Palestinian refugees, and their descendants, forever and ever, have the right to return to israel and become citizens of the state.

2. Since it is a "right" to return, that means that Israel will not have the right to exclude anyone who can show that they are a descendant of a Palestinian from moving to Israel. If the government gives you the right to speak it can't then limit the right to only saying what the government wants.

3. That means that any and all of the current 4.5 million "refugees" will be able to return to Israel, along with anyone else who can reasonably claim to be a descendant of the 1948 or 1967 refugees.

4. The Arab states and the new Palestinian state will not take them.

5. No other country will take them, or they would have by now.

6. As economic and political conditions are far better in Israel than they are in Arab countries, there is going to be a large economic and political pressure for the Palestinians to go to Israel.

7. As the intent of having the refugees return was always to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with an Arab state, there is going to be a huge cultural and political pressure for the "refugees" to return to finish the job of re-conquering Palestine for the Arabs by force of demographics.

8. As Israel will have agreed to the "right" of the Arabs to do this, Israel will not be able to prevent it. The instant Israel stops a "refugee" from returning, it will have violated the peace agreement and the war is on again.

9. Any agreement which this generation of Palestinians may make to not return, will not be binding on future generations. In contrast, once Israel agrees to the "right" of return, it is bound by that forever.

In short, there is only one right of return. It means that all Palestinians can return to Israel whenever they want, and Israel can't do anything to stop them. The Israelis know this, which is why they would never agree to it. It means declaring that the Jewish state has no legitimacy, come on in and take it away from us.

If Jews go to Israel they join the majority Jewish state. If the RoR were instituted, then 4.5 million Arabs go to Israel and turn it into an Arab state. Are you suggesting that most Palestinians have a criminal history or would be a security risk? Come on! And if Israel were to say that there is a RoR, but we won't let it be implemented, then that makes a mockery of the concept of a right.

or can I take it that in reality you already do see the the relevancy and there for do not wish to answer?

I don't think that they could exclude someone for being anti-Israel. For example, I don't think that they could exclude Norman Finklestein as a "security threat" if he wanted to demand return under the law of return. That would be even stronger under a so called "right of return". In other words, Israel would not have the right to exclude the bulk of Palestinians as a security risk merely to protect the demographic balance of the state. Doing so would be contrary to the idea of a right, contrary to the intent of the RoR (thatis to change the demographic balance), and probably contrary to any peace agreement. So how is it relevant that Israel can keep out criminals and security threats?

allows more leeway than it's own law let;s clear up any doubt about Israels RoR

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

That's the entire point of right of return. To force Israel to take in all of the "refugees" whether it wants them or not. The Law of Return is completely different from and exists for completely different reasons that the RoR. Comparing them the way you are doing is facile.

It is a cynical but time-honoured practice in Middle Eastern politics: the statesmen who decry the political and humanitarian crisis of the approximately 3.9 million Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in Gaza ignore the plight of an estimated 4.6 million Palestinians who live in Arab countries. For decades, Arab governments have justified their decision to maintain millions of stateless Palestinians as refugees in squalid camps as a means of applying pressure to Israel. The refugee problem will be solved, they say, when Israel agrees to let the Palestinians have their own state.

-snip-

The inclusion of the descendants of Palestinian refugees as refugees in UNRWA's mandate has no parallel in international humanitarian law and is responsible for the growth of the official numbers of Palestinian refugees in foreign countries from 711,000 to 4.6 million during decades when the number of ageing refugees from the 1948 Israeli war of independence in was in fact declining. UNRWA's grant of refugee status to the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original Palestinian refugees according to the principle of patrilineal descent, with no limit on the generations that can obtain refugee status, has made it easy for host countries to flout their obligations under international law. According to Article 34 of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, "The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees," and must "make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings" – the opposite of what happened to the Palestinians in every Arab country in which they settled, save Jordan. For all the easy criticism that can be levelled at UNRWA, it is hard to see how many Palestinian refugees would have survived without the agency's help.

-snip

Daniel Kurtzer agrees no one is likely to make a deal that includes a substantial return of the Palestinian diaspora. "Most Palestinian refugees know it, as do the settlers," he says. So rather than wait for American mediators or Arab states to impose solutions on them, the Palestinians themselves should begin to tackle the diabolically difficult issues inherent in the resolution of their political and economic future. "What we need is a refugee summit," he says. "I'm looking for a real conversation that must start internally and soon."

After 60 years of failed wars, and failed peace, it is time to put politics aside and to insist that the basic rights of the Palestinian refugees in Arab countries be respected – whether or not their children's children return to Haifa anytime soon. While Saudi Arabia may not wish to host Israeli tourists, it can easily afford to integrate the estimated 240,000 Palestinian refugees who already live in the kingdom – just as Egypt, which has received close to $60bn in US aid, and has a population of 81 million, can grant legal rights to an estimated 70,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants. One can only imagine the outrage that the world community would rightly visit upon Israel if Israeli Arabs were subject to the vile discriminatory laws applied to Palestinians living in Arab countries. Surely, Palestinian Arabs can keep their own national dream alive in the countries where they were born, while also enjoying the freedom to work, vote and own property?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/no-way-home-the-tragedy-of-the-palestinian-diaspora-1806790.html

this bill in the OP will not be implemented by a Democratic led US state department I can ask why? especially in an election year

<snip>

"Republican Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday sided with Israel in criticizing the BBC's Olympics coverage.

Kirk tweeted that he is "disappointed BBC News refuses to recognize" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office has created a Facebook page called “Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" as a means to publicize the BBC's decision to not list Jerusalem as the capital in its official Olympics coverage. Kirk linked to the page — which has garnered 17,642 "likes" since last week — in his tweet."

Mark Kirk✔
@SenatorKirk

Fact: #Jerusalem is the capital of #Israel.

Disappointed @BBCNews refuses to recognize this on its Olympic site

facebook.com/JerusalemCapit…