Abbas Vows No Retreat from Arafat Refugee Demand

[Scurrilous]

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6896983

<snip>

"Palestinian presidential favorite Mahmoud Abbas vowed on Tuesday never to give up the late Yasser Arafat's bedrock peace demand that Israel recognize the Palestinian refugees' "right of return."

<snip>

"Abbas, a former prime minister, enjoys the respect of Israel and the United States for his calls to end the militant revolt launched in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza four years ago in favor of renewing talks on Palestinian statehood there.

But Abbas lacks broad appeal among Palestinians and faces a possible power struggle with a younger generation who believe occupied land can be better regained by fighting Israel's rightist government and suspect he would compromise on longstanding Palestinian demands.

"We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends," Abbas told a session of parliament held to mourn Arafat."

[papau]

1. right of return means a demand for end of Jewish state - means no peace -

Arafat would be proud.

[drdon326]

2. error

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Recognition of the right of return doesn't mean that at all...

It's the word recognition that's the crucial thing in all this, and basically anyone who thinks it's outrageous that Israel recognise right of return or imo, ignorantly huff and puff away about the right of return being non-existant are opposed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Without the right of return being addressed and some sort of solution being reached where the very real grievances of the refugees are addressed by Israel, there won't be any peace...

Violet...

[papau]

8. I wish - I hope - that you are correct - perhaps a re-offer of Taba will

get PA acceptance this time.

The initial translations I saw made clear that a Taba type compromise was out of the question - (and Fatah comments were extremely clear) but later translations on the wire allowed for "being addressed and some sort of solution being reached"

I hope the latter is in the cards.

:-)

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I'm not all that familiar with the specifics of Taba...

What I do know is that Sharon broke off all talks after being elected, and that both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators said that they came closer to agreement than in the past, and that if talks had continued, it would have more than likely brought about a fair resolution to the conflict. But I don't know what the specifics were when it came to the issue of Palestinian refugees. I'd be interested in finding out more if you or anyone else knows where to find that stuff....

Violet....

[papau]

17. Taba is well documented - but "nothing is decided until all is decided"

was and is the position of the PA - which makes a "road map partial agreement" a rather curious idea.

Taba had many - but not Arafat - agreeing that returning to the West Bank was no problem, but returning to Israel was to be severely limited in number - with Israel the final arbiter of the yearly number - but with reparations paid to those who do not return.

Two maps were on "offer" - or at least on discussion - with green line adjusted per PA suggestion but with land exchange making the final Israel about 3.5% larger than green line Israel, and Israel suggesting a map that was green line Israel plus 6%.

Google should bring up a memo (written by a ARAB? UN? fellow if I remember correctly - but I would not put a great deal of faith in my memory - thank goodness for google!) that says that it records that which was discussed and the position of the parties when Arafat walked out.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I did a bit of googling...

I think yr referring to the EU nonpaper (whatever the hell a nonpaper is). Here it is with what was said about the refugees...

3. Refugees

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative

The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation

Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation
1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation
1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.

Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

3.3 Compensation

Both sides agreed to the establishment of an International Commission and an International Fund as a mechanism for dealing with compensation in all its aspects. Both sides agreed that "small-sum" compensation shall be paid to the refugees in the "fast-track" procedure, claims of compensation for property losses below certain amount shall be subject to "fast-track" procedures.

There was also progress on Israeli compensation for material losses, land and assets expropriated, including agreement on a payment from an Israeli lump sum or proper amount to be agreed upon that would feed into the International Fund. According to the Israeli side the calculation of this payment would be based on a macro-economic survey to evaluate the assets in order to reach a fair value. The Palestinian side, however, said that this sum would be calculated on the records of the UNCCP, the Custodian for Absentee Property and other relevant data with a multiplier to reach a fair value.

3.4 UNRWA

Both sides agreed that UNRWA should be phased out in accordance with an agreed timetable of five years, as a targeted period. The Palestinian side added a possible adjustment of that period to make sure that this will be subject to the implementation of the other aspects of the agreement dealing with refugees, and with termination of Palestinian refugee status in the various locations.

3.5 Former Jewish refugees

The Israeli side requested that the issue of compensation to former Jewish refugees from Arab countries be recognized, while accepting that it was not a Palestinian responsibility or a bilateral issue. The Palestinian side maintained that this is not a subject for a bilateral Palestinian-Israeli agreement.

3.6 Restitution

The Palestinian side raised the issue of restitution of refugee property. The Israeli side rejected this.

3.7 End of claims

The issue of the end of claims was discussed, and it was suggested that the implementation of the agreement shall constitute a complete and final implementation of UNGAR 194 and therefore ends all claims.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

This is the sort of thing any future negotiations should pick up and run with, especially the joint narrative idea...

Violet...

[papau]

19. thanks for researching and finding the EU "non-paper" - that is what I

had recalled!

:-)

[forgethell]

20. A recognition of the right

of return implies that the Palestinians will be allowed to return. This physical return will destroy Israel. Do you really think the Ps will jump for joy because 'Israel' recognized their ROR, but won't let any of them return? This is beyond sloppy thinking; This is beyond nonsense! This is Kool-aid!!

But, maybe I'm wrong. Spell out, in detail, please, exactly how you think it should work. I am neither a Jew, nor an Israeli, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, except to see justice. Convince me that Israel can continue to exist, as a Jewish state, and grant a "right of return". I don't see how, myself. Remember, though, details. We don't want to go into this like *, without a plan to win the peace.

[Darranar]

22. No, it wouldn't. It would imply compensation, but not actual return. n/t

[forgethell]

3. The Palestinians

seem to be real slow learners, at least their leaders. Without giving up the non-existent "right-of-return", the only end to the war will be . . . well, there won't be one.

[drdon326]

5. Or...

they would rather kiss the terrorists ass than actually have peace.

What a jerk.

[ashiebr]

6. If wanting the right of return is a terrorist demand..................

........what does that make Israel?

[forgethell]

10. Demands aren't terrorist.

Killing innocent people, targeting them, is.

but yes, I agree that during their own fight for independence, many israeli settlers were terrorists. Doesn't mean that they will allow the Palestinians to win the so-called "right-of-return"

[Djinn]

7. so in other words

the peace will only be on the terms Israel wants - gee that sounds like "negotiation" can you imagine the hue and cry if people stated "without recognising the right of return the end to the intifada will be...well there wont be one" what utter and total arrogance.

Imagine if the South Africans had said "until all ANC activity stops there will be no end to Apartheid"

[papau]

9. ANC South Africans offerred tolerance - Fatah offers Islamic Law

:toast:

:-)

[Djinn]

15. come back when you know what you're talking about

Fatah does not and never has advocated an Islamic state or Islamic law - nice try though

[papau]

16. Fatah does not and never has advocated a pluristic minority rights

society. The Shari`ah (sacred law) and the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is indeed the goal of many in the PA and most in Fatah - at least that is my impression. I grant you that the PA has not so stated in its consitution, and Fatah only refers to killing all Jews or driving all Jews from the Holy Land in the daily speeches and tapes they release, rather than discussing the legal system they want.

But I guess you want me to acknowledge the rather good - but never implemented - PA consitution that was first drafted in 1997 but only signed a few years ago by Yasser Arafat with instructions that it will "operate until a formal Palestinian state is established".

Saddly Mr Arafat's administration's authoritarianism has continued and the PA has not implemented the new laws that would seem to be implied by this constitution.

BUT IT IS A LOVELY PIECE OF PAPER! :-)

Article (5)
Arabic shall be the official language and Islam shall be the official religion in Palestine. Christianity, and all other monotheistic religions, shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.
Article (7)
The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a major source of legislation. The civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teaching and their denominations, within the framework of law and in a manner that preserves the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.

[Djinn]

21. ah like the way Arab rights are ensured in Israel

like the law that says who they can and can not marry!

"Fatah only refers to killing all Jews or driving all Jews from the Holy Land in the daily speeches and tapes they release, rather than discussing the legal system they want."

please source just ONE speech where Fatah says they want to kill all Jews.

[forgethell]

11. well, nobody is going

to "negotiate" away their own existence. And, yes, the Israelis are the stronger party, so they do get to set at least some of the terms.

[drdon326]

13. It appears.....

you and Abbas are the last two holding out for ROR. I don't think

the self-destruction of itself is high on israels agenda.

[Djinn]

14. I'm not holding out for anything don

I have no dog in this fight - has nothing to do with me, I just find it weird that everyone demands actions on behalf of teh Palestinians but Israel can set it's own terms.

No-one asked the Palestinians whether they'd mind their own destruction when they were forced out of their villages by Zionist terrorists...but there I go again what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.