Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

You're right where you say elsewhere that it's related to right of return. It also helps explain why Israel can never agree to RoR. To understand that you have to be clear about what a right is and what the Palestinians mean by RoR.

According to Black's Law Dictionary a right is, "A legally enforceable claim of one person against another." In this case that other is the State of Israel. So RoR is a conceived of as a legal obligation of Israel to who? Palestinian refugees of course, but who is a Palestinian refugee? Well the Palestinians claim that anyone who can claim to be a Palestinian not living in Israel is a refugee. Not only that, but they clam that the right is individual to each Palestinian now living and all those yet to be born, forever. That is why they claim that no one can waive the right of return. It supposedly belongs to each Palestinian individually and in each succeeding generation.

What do we have to conclude from this? First because it is a right, there is nothing that Israel can legitimately do to deny asserted Palestinian refugees entry. If they have a right to come in, then Israel doesn't have the right to keep them out. And since the right is individual, Israel can't create a quota system, because they would still be denying the rights of anyone not making the quota. Now of course, Israel has the power to keep people out of the country, but if they accept right of return and then keep people out, they would be making Israel an illegitimate country for the rest of time. The Palestinians would be able to claim that Israel always existed in present violation of their rights. That's an untenable place for any state to be, even if no refugees ever returned.

And it gets worse. Because the right is claimed to be individual and perpetual, any person who could claim to be a Palestinian would have the right to return at any time until the end of time. So the conflict would never end.

It also means that any agreement by anyone that the refugees won't return is void from the get go. Abbas can't agree that the refugees won't return anymore than he can waive the right in the first place. And finally, any agreement to accept compensation in place of return doesn't solve anything, because it would be on an individual basis and at the refugee's choice. So any future Palestinian could come along and claim the right to return or to get paid off. It would never end.

Let's be clear. Israel has the power to prevent return, but if it accepts a right of return, then it can't prevent return and maintain its legitimacy, which is an existential issue for any state. The only way that Israel could legitimately prevent a flood of returning refugees is by invoking a right that takes precedence over right of return. That would be the right to maintain the national character of the Jewish state. Which is what Abbas keeps declaring that he will never accept. And keeping the conflict going is a big reason why.

First, it's extremely unlikely to happen. In fact, the numbers seem to be going to other way. Second, it wouldn't happen all at once, so the society could evolve and ease into the new situation. Third, it would be an internal evolution not a forced change by outsiders. So, if it happens, it happens. There wouldn't be deportations. What there would be is the usual effort to keep up the Jewish birthrate. And hopefully the effort to create an Israeli people that had some unifying cultural identity. Societies change, although demographically they don't change much or quickly. But that doesn't give the Palestinians the right to come in and change someone else's country. If they want an Arab state, then they should make peace for one of their own.

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

will end through a political process of negotiations mainly due to the influence of the United States.

What you have stated would not preclude Israel to agree to compensation and a number of refugees
with a binding agreement from the Palestinians...are you suggesting any such agreement would leave
Israel open to legal challenges? If so I don't agree, for example, if the US brokers a deal between the
parties, and Israel keeps most of the West Bank, that leaves Abbas in a precariously weak position
legally..I do not believe he can agree to this and then turn around and have a case at the ICJ based
on what was decided in the advisory ruling in 2004 and reclaim the West Bank.

Israel could certainly agree to compensation, and allow return. Israel can never agree to a right of return as it would be open ended. The issue is legitimacy. Any state that exists by violating the rights of people is illegitimate. Now that is the Arab claim, but to expect Israel to agree to its own illegitimacy is too much. Especially since most Israelis don't think the Palestinians have a right to return in the first place.

them for you. Israel knows they are vulnerable on legal grounds and is one reason they never want to see these
issues rectified by the ICC. The US knows this too and is the reason they step in to protect them consistently
all these many years.

The greater reality is that Israel stands with the most powerful country as its ally and RoR should, a political
resolve, was to be/was intended to be, negotiated..I do not understand on what grounds a binding agreement
on RoR would be drawn up as open ended. If you're suggesting that if Israel does not concede any RoR they
will keep their legitimacy intact by doing so..I disagree.

The UN and HRW and AI have concluded they have this right. Below, the highlights:

LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO RETURN
The right to return to one’s own country, including the right to return of the Palestinians, does have solid
foundations in international law. The right to return to one’s own country is addressed in three of the major
pillars of international law, which complement and reinforce one other: human rights law, refugee
law, and resolutions and declarations by international bodies and authorities that affirm or clarify rules of
international law. One principle emphasized by all three is that the right to return to one’s own country is
to be enjoyed without discrimination of any kind. In practice, States and intergovernmental organizations
do invoke the right to return as a legal right in situations of mass displacement. They also implement the
right to return in situations where territories have changed hands and even when the originating facts
(those that created the displacement of the populations, for example) precede the existence of the specific
legal norms addressing the right to return.

It would be useful to review some of the human rights legal sources and other references on the right to
return to one’s own country, in order to help clarify the different dimensions of this human right,to
demonstrate how and why it is internationally recognized, and to explain why it is a valid legal principle
applicable to the situation of the Palestinian refugees. This memo also includes some recent examples of
practice by states or intergovernmental organizations in relation to the right to return, and suggests some
general principles we should take into account when venturing into the field of legal interpretation.

Human rights law
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1948,
sets out the guiding principles of the human rights movement. The rights and principles enshrined in the
UDHR have been elaborated and codified in subsequent legally binding international human rights
treaties, as well as in national constitutions and laws. The right to return is among these
Afirstprinciples@; the UDHR states that: “
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country

1
Although there is some controversy among scholars about the juridical status of
the UDHR, no one questions its moral force. The governments represented at the first A global
conference@ on human rights, held in Iran in 1968, agreed that A, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community

2
Moreover, it is not contentious to say that at least some of provisions of the Declaration
reflect norms that are binding on all States.

3
International treaties give force to the rights proclaimed in the UDHR. Becoming Aparty@ to
international human rights treaties is one of the main means by which States accept legal obligations to
promote and protect the rights enumerated in the treaty. One of the most important human rights treaties
is the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It affirms the right to return,
stating that:“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country

4
Technically speaking, the right to return to one=s own country is a component of the right to freedom of
movement. It differs from other components of this right such as the right to leave any country including
one=s own B in that the right to return cannot be subject to limitations because of “national security,
public order , public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.”

5
The right to return is A derogable@, meaning that its enjoyment can be partially suspended in cases in
which there is a A public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.
However, for this A derogation@ to be legitimate, it cannot go beyond what is A strictly required by the
exigencies of the situation, and the measures taken by the State to resolve the situation cannot be A
inconsistent with their other obligations under international law” or A, involve discrimination solely on the
ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

6
Briefly, under international human rights law, the right to return to one=s own country is a very
strong right which accepts few qualifiers. Without suggesting a hierarchy of different human rights, one
could say that in the ICCPR the right to return is weaker than the right to be free from torture, which
cannot be derogated from even under circumstances that threaten the life of a nation, but it is
A, stronger than freedom of expression, which can be limited for reasons of national security, the rights
and freedoms of others, etc.The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
is another treaty that establishes legal obligations for the States parties. It says:
“In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake
to¼ guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality
before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: (d) Other civil rights, in particular: ii) The right to leave
any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country.”

8
Israel is a State party to both of these treaties.

9
_
In becoming parties to a human rights treaty, States pledge to cooperate with the bodies that monitor the
implementation of the treaty. The treaties mentioned above created bodies specifically mandated to
monitor state compliance with their provisions. These bodies are the Human Rights Committee (HRC) for
the ICCPR and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for the respective
Convention. Each Committee is composed of independent experts who are persons of high moral
character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, and who are representative of different
legal systems and traditions. The treaty bodies report annually to the UN General Assembly but they do
not take specific instructions from any UN body or country. Under the treaties, States parties submit
regular reports explaining what they have done to give effect to the rights recognized in the treaty and to
guarantee the enjoyment of these rights to the people under their jurisdiction.




http://www.hrw.org/news/2000/12/21/israel-palestinian-leaders-should-guarantee-right-return-part-comprehensive-refugee-

Let's look at the UDHR first. In particular, Article 13 states:

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

It has two clauses, and they should be read in context together. One calls for freedom of movement within each state. It is a right of intrastate travel. The second clause is a right of interstate travel, not a right of return for refugees. For starters, the word, "refugee," doesn't appear in Article 13 at all. That on its face suggests that it is not a right of return for refugees. But also, because "refugees" isn't in the article, the special definition that the Palestinians would like for their refugee status doesn't apply. That is that succeeding generations born in other countries don't count as refugees. So now one has to analyze the text.

The relevant clause says that a person has the right to leave any country and return to his country. Except Israel was never the country of any of the refugees. See the report of Judge Jose Ingles: Study of Discrimination in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country, Geneva, UN, 1963, UN Sales no. 64.XIV.2, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/220/Rev.1to the UN wherein he interprets the clause as applying only to citizens or nationals of the subject country. The Palestinians were never citizens of Israel. And for those born in other countries, the country of their birth is their country. Especially when read with the first clause, this provision is an individual's right of travel, not a right of return for refugees. See also, Stig Jagerskiold, "The Freedom of Movement", in Louis Henkin, ed., The International Bill of Rights, New York, 1981, pp. 166-184 at p. 180.


A similar analysis applies to the ICCPR.

what Israel avoids, their government, do not want this legal fight because
they would lose on the merits..collectively. It is not because of bias they would lose, aranthus.

Again, the reason Israel is trying now to have the Palestinians recognize a Jewish
state is because Netanyahu knows the legal consequences to Israel could be avoided if
Abbas agrees to such recognition.

Suggesting that Israel was never the country of any of the refugees as an argument will not assist them, imo.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the strength of these arguments..I do believe there has always been
a political means to achieve a just resolution to the RoR. How he avoids it will likely be through Kerry's
assistance and Abbas' lack of options.

anybody listening to what they have to say :

" Palestinians living inside Israel have various views about their identity and relationship with the state, but all agree that the concept of a “Jewish state” is racist and exclusionary "

Read more @

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/03/palestinians-israel-views-identity-relationship-state.html

I don't think it means what many non-Jews fear, but I understand the fear. I'd be surprised if non-Jews were in favor of it. By the way, are you Jewish? Do you have Arab friends? If so, what do they say to you about it? Do you have Jewish friends who disagree with you? I'm trying to get a clearer picture from someone who lives there.