Netanyahu On Palestinian 'Right Of Return': There Is No Room For Maneuver

[Purveyor]

With US Secretary of State John Kerry pushing forward with efforts to present a document that will form the basis of further Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made clear there is “no room to maneuver” on the Palestinian claim of a right of return for Palestinian refugees.

“It is a nonstarter, it is not going to happen,” one official said.

The refugee issue, as well as borders, security, Jerusalem and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state are issues expected to be addressed in broad strokes in the US document.

But as the US prepares to unveil this document, both Israelis and Palestinians have issued statements, which show a wide gap between them when it comes to their redlines.

The PLO said Wednesday that the peace process with Israel was not serious and called for international involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

MORE...

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/161570/netanyahu-on-palestinian-39-right-of-return-39-there-is-no-room-for-maneuver.html

[Jefferson23]

1. Piece brother..Go in Piece....Piece Now. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

2. are you really surprised

there cannot be a right of return to Israel proper for the refugees, as it would greatly harm Israel in the long run.

Instead what should be discussed is compensation for those that were displaced by Israeli force in the period 1947-1949.

At the same time Jews who were forced out of Arab countries should be compensated by those governments.

The refugees that are in the various Arab countries should then be given the choice of moving to the WB or Gaza, or staying where they are and becoming citizens of those countries.

[Jefferson23]

3. Really, none? They do in fact have a right of return..and Abaas already long ago

recognized Israel would never agree to all. But that evidently that is not good, there can't
be an agreed upon number, either.

No, I am not surprised by anything Bibi says.

[sabbat hunter]

4. I believe that

being compensated monetarily should be enough (and being allowed to settle in the WB or Gaza).

Now perhaps a nominal number of a few thousand can be allowed back, but I think it may open up a can of worms that will not lead to anything good.

[Jefferson23]

5. The point is they don't believe it would be enough and they have international

law to support them. Compensation will likely be nominal if Abbas accepts Israel as a Jewish
state..something Israel does not identify itself as nor does the US officially recognize it that way.

It is an underhanded tactic. No matter how this deal goes down, the Palestinians must
have a viable state..that should never be denied them.

[sabbat hunter]

6. absolutely

Israel should pull out of the WB entirely, with the exception of the old city.

In the treaty, Israelis should be allowed access to jewish holy sites in Palestine, and Palestinians allowed access to the dome of the Rock and Al-asqa on the temple mount.

[Shaktimaan]

12. But they don't.

No international law or precedent supports Palestinian ROR. even if it did, the cornerstone of intl law is sovereignty. No state can be compelled to undertake an action which would cause it's dissolution.

[Jefferson23]

13. Yea they do..it is only somewhat ambiguous and most important, the call has always been

for a just resolution to the issue of the refugees..to include compensation.


You're aware of the many facets to the conflict as it relates to the acquisition of land?

No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

[Shaktimaan]

14. Ambiguous law?

Cute. So far you quoted two UN advisory opinions, neither of which are actually law in any sense and neither of which say anything about a right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Your link doesn't even refer to this discussion. It's about the ICJs advisory opinion on the wall.

Show me a law or strong precedent.

[Jefferson23]

16. Nothing cute about my source, and you have a shortage of comprehension as to

the lack of sovereignty Israel has with claiming land as a result of war.

It is fine you do not believe there is precedent set by the collective opinions, advisory
or not. The political will of the US to defend Israel is what has prevented an end to
the conflict. You should ask yourself, honestly, why Israel and the US do not want
under any circumstances for the ICJ, UN, UNSC to resolve this conflict...because
unlike you, they know better.

And yes, there is an element of ambiguity in the law re: RoR, do you think all
laws are not up for interpretation? Ridiculous.

Human rights laws, UDHA, of which Israel is a State party to more than one treaty, and RoR
is addressed.

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 Afirst principles@; the UDHR states that: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.@[ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, art 13.] 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 Aglobal conference@ on human rights, held in Iran in 1968, agreed that Athe Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community.@[ Proclamation of Teheran, Proclaimed by the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran on 13 May 1968, paragraph 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.[ Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2 , #702, p.167]

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.@[ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976. Article 12.4 ]

[Shaktimaan]

18. So basically.

You're saying that the legal argument for Arab RoR relies on the interpretation of ambiguous aspects of certain declarations and treaties, as no specific international laws enshrining the RoR exist, nor do any legal precedents for believing so. And these interpretations are applicable to events that transpired before the declarations (all of them), were written. And to people who were not born until decades after said events, or/and who had Jordanian or another citizenship. Despite never having Israeli citizenship.

That there exists such a narrow interpretation with legal standing despite it never having been applied ever before to any of the innumerable opportunities.

That people who left Israel before Israel's creation have the right to demand citizenship as do their children. Children who were born in states that they don't have the right to demand citizenship of. Only Israel. A state they've never seen.

That's your argument?

[Jefferson23]

19. Nope, that's not what I presented to you.

Believe as you wish..but remember what I said earlier..Israel and the US would not
under any circumstances wish to place the resolve of this conflict to the parties
as I stated..and they do not, because they would lose. They understand why.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Youre right about that

They would lose. But what makes you consider the UN to in any way be an objective or fair organization? Why would Israel place it's future in the hands of an organization that once deemed Zionism alone amongst all national movements to be racist. Or the UNSC, when it is the only member state denied the right to the possibility of a seat?

Now. I raised several legit criticisms to your post. Care to address any? What did I say that differs from your argument?

Anything at all?

[Jefferson23]

22. All of those parties? Even the ICC? I don't know if you really believe that.

Legally, Israel would be hard pressed to prevail, period.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Why?

You've yet to make a point I didn't refute.

[Jefferson23]

25. Huh? There are people who accept that Israels wars are legitimate and their

sovereignty secured..IT is only secured by the political will of the US..that's it.

I would be so pleased for the Palestinians if Israel would take their chances at the ICC.

I have nothing else to explain to you.

[Shaktimaan]

26. Sooo????

You're saying that Israel as a state is illegitimate entirely? Or just some of it? Why would its sovereignty or it's right to sovereignty be in any way dependent on the USA?

I don't understand what you believe exactly?

And the ICC prosecutes war criminals. Who in Israel did you even want prosecuted there? The state itself? And how would the ICC even affect the RoR? I don't think you know as much as you think you do about this whole thing.

[Jefferson23]

27. Oh my gosh.

If I have confused the matter I apologize. Israel is a state that has a serious problem
of being an occupying power.

One focus, is what I presumed we were discussing was on the RoR. Israel and the US rejected for years and years
a resolution to the conflict because they can...political might, military might, ok? They would NOT
prevail imo, on the legal merits...they know this. When the ICJ heard the case years back, and the advisory
ruling was released, Colin Powell and Kerry NEVER said, hey..you guys are wrong. What they said essentially was, it
was none of your business to hear the case. You understand now?

Below is what should have occurred many years ago:

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/997AAD7178DBFD66852579950056A99C


We're done here.

[Shaktimaan]

28. If you say so

For the record, the IJC didn't have jurisdiction which is precisely why it issued an advisory ruling. Not a ruling with binding legal consequences. Regardless that ruling was concerning the security wall, not the RoR or peace plan obligations.

a resolution to the conflict because they can...political might, military might, ok? They would NOT
prevail imo, on the legal merits...they know this.

Wouldn't prevail regarding what?

The link you provided was to a UNGA resolution. It's just an opinion, by UN state representatives. It has nothing to do with actual legality or even makes an attempt to look impartial. Did you notice that every single criticism and demand was regarding Israel? Not even a mention of Qassams, Hamas' coup of Gaza, Palestinian elections not being held, or really any single legitimate critique of Palestinian actions which negatively impact the peace process?

Can you mention anytime that the UN has successfully enforced a peace decision that it has brokered?

[Jefferson23]

33. Can you appreciate collective opinions in response to your initial

claim, which was a blanket statement; the Palestinians don't have a legal right, nor is there legal precedent on RoR.

You have been presented with numerous examples yet your questions continue to splinter
off and this conversation has been one step forward but then three steps backward. There
exists overlap from one law, treaty to another, the acquisition of land through force and or war does
in fact help the Palestinians, not Israel. How many parties are not trust worthy, the ICC too? But somehow
the US is even handed, given they have always blocked everything they can to protect Israel and the ongoing occupation
to confiscate more land they do not have rights to.

You are not aware the Palestinians status changed?

General Assembly grants Palestine non-member observer State status at UN
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp/realfile/www.unodc.org/story.asp?NewsID=43640&Cr=palestin&Cr1=#.UuqdxLT535M


Yet you are still asking, prevail regarding what?

Maybe someone else can step in and help you connect the dots.

Bye.

[shaayecanaan]

20. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

says that a man is entitled to leave his country, and to return to it.

[Shaktimaan]

23. Ok

The Palestinians were never citizens of Israel. They left prior to Israel's creation.

The UDHR was written after this occurred. Laws don't apply to past events unless specified.

The UDHR is not actually a law.


Most official Palestinian refugees have never been to Israel, let alone ever left it.

A RoR of Palestinians to Palestine is entirely possible. Many of the original refugees never left mandate Palestine.

No compulsory RoR has ever been applied in the past to any large refugee population including post partition Indians, Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia or Jews from Arab countries.

Most importantly. No state can be compelled to undertake actions which threaten it's sovereignty or security.

[shaayecanaan]

29. You could say the same of any refugees...

The Kosovar Serbs, for example, fled Kosovo prior to Kosovo becoming a state. They were never Kosovar citizens. The UDHR refers to "country" rather than state, meaning that the Kosovar Serbs should still be allowed to return, even if the demarcation of states has changed.

The UDHR was written after this occurred. Laws don't apply to past events unless specified.

We're not talking about a past event. We're talking about whether the Palestinian refugees, as a matter of international law, are entitled to return to their country, in the here and now.

No state can be compelled to undertake actions

Thats right. Under international law, no state can be compelled to do or not do anything, unless it involves the sovereign affairs of another state. It can decide to ratify international law of its own accord, but that is about it. Meaning that as long as Nazi Germany declined to ratify the UNDR, or the convention against genocide, it would be legally entitled to slaughter as many Jews as it wanted.

On the other hand, Israel has signed up to the UN, as well as the Geneva conventions, the convention on refugees, and on genocide. Of course there is no real mechanism to enforce those laws, but Israel remains in breach of them nevertheless.

[Shaktimaan]

30. Oh

The Kosovar Serbs, for example, fled Kosovo prior to Kosovo becoming a state. They were never Kosovar citizens. The UDHR refers to "country" rather than state, meaning that the Kosovar Serbs should still be allowed to return, even if the demarcation of states has chan

Country and state are the same thing. The UNDR isn't about refugees in the first place, and remember, it's not even actually a law.

Palestinian refugees, as a matter of international law, are entitled to return to their country, in the here and now.

To return to Palestine you mean? Well sure. That would be up to Palestine. But the legal right to return to Israel, no of course not.

My earlier point was that The UDHR was written after the nabka, meaning it can't reasonably be legally applied to it. The Palestinians had already left. Laws aren't enforced retroactively.

Meaning that as long as Nazi Germany declined to ratify the UNDR, or the convention against genocide, it would be legally entitled to slaughter as many Jews as it wanted.

That's not only untrue, ridiculous and so easily disproven, but you purposely edited my quote to alter it's meaning. Believe whatever you want. If you're incapable of debating honestly I'm uninterested in continuing.

All this talk... You've accused Israel of violating countless laws and after everything you're unable to show me even one REAL example.

Which I presume is why you started that Glenn Beck paraphrasing out of context shit. Needs work btw.

[sabbat hunter]

7. do you agree that

Allowing a large number/all the palestinians back to Israel proper would destroy Israel, end up causing a one state, Palestine, in the long run?

[politicman]

8. disagree

I disagree, you will have two countries side by side.

Palestinians if they are allowed the full right of return would only constitute less than 10% of the Israeli population, s small minority.

Every country has small minority's, some even have large minority's, why should Israel be any different?

[oberliner]

9. Where do you get your figures from?

I'm just curious how you arrived at this statement:

"Palestinians if they are allowed the full right of return would only constitute less than 10% of the Israeli population"

[politicman]

10. oops

Oops, sorry I meant to type 20%, but was typing fast and didn't realize I hit the 1 instead of the 2.

I apologise if I accidently distorted the discussion, will make it a point to proof read my posts from now on.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Um

Palestinians right now are 20% of the Israeli pop.

[Israeli]

15. Actually Shaktimaan....

The Arab population of Israel proper = 20.7 %

The " other " non Jewish population = 4 %

That's almost 25 % .

Source :
http://www1.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2013n/11_13_097e.pdf

Now take into consideration Israeli atheists and those of us that prefer the term ' Israeli ' to that of Jew ... which holds little meaning to any of us .

Then take into consideration this :

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/184245/jews-now-minority-in-israel-and-territories/

" Jewish state " ..... !!!!!

[Shaktimaan]

17. So you strengthen my argument.

Full Arab RoR would not make them "merely 20%" of the population but far, far greater.

Thx.

[Israeli]

31. No Shaktimaan....

I was correcting your mistake .

I'm Gush Shalom ...

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

Recognizing in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

32. Well

I said

Palestinians right now are 20% of the Israeli pop.

You said 20.7.

What are you correcting?