> > 2) East Jerusalem being run under a complex, and actually quite
> > imaginative, power sharing
> > arrangement.
>
> Right..they proposed to expand "Jerusalem" to cover some of the
> surrounding region as well..it was quite a good soloution, IMHO.
> There were were some MINOR points, but...
>
> > My memory is that there were still quibbles about this offer, but
> > nothing that couldn't be hammered out.
Hm.
Jerusalem has traditionally been the sticking point.
> > The sticking point was the "right of return." That is the
> > Palestinians who's families use to live in Israel had the right to
> > return to Israel. IIRC, that would make Israel a majority Palestinian
> > state. (If not now, very soon.) The Jewish residents would no longer
> > be able to run Israel. Given the fact that hatred of Israel has been
> > taught for years, and that the Palestinians have had the destruction
> > of Israel as part of their charter up until approximately 10 years
> > ago, do you really think that it was immoral of Israel to refuse this?
>
> And yes, Israel is a Jewish state. Yes, just over a million arabs live
> in Israel, and they're good citizens - many volunteered to take over
> critcal jobs to free up soliders for the front lines during the 6 Day
> War and the You Kippur war..something about Israel being a
> deomocracy and the arab countries not...
>
> Does that mean, if a Palestian state is created, that we should
> accept the Palestians who origionally lived in Israel back? I stress,
> they would have their OWN state. Why should they have the right
> to live in Israel in that case?
>
> > Since for over 30 years the Palestinians _explicitly_ called for the
> > destruction of Israel, is it irrational to feel that many Palestinians
> > feel the same way, and if the government of Israel were turned over to
> > them, and they control the they would use that control to start a
> > pogum?
>
> The Palestians constantly primise to revise their school textbooks,
> to stop putting out anti-Israel properganda on their radio stations.
> They have NOT.
>
> > Remember, the only real sticking point in the negotiations late last
> > year was the right of return.
>
> It was a farce..if they have a state, they don't NEED that right. After
> all, the whole point is they want a place of their own, right? Why
> stick on the right of return if you REALLY want peace?
No. Its not a farce.
Israel and Jews have asserted (and won) claims analogous to a right of
return in Germany and in contries like Poland and the Czeck Republic these
often take the form or recognizing latent rights of citizenship but more
important for this case the ongoing right to recover both real and movable
property or the value thereof with interest (eg Swiss accounts, back wages
from War time contractors, and missing art). In addition, there are
reparations due for crimes.
The Jewish majority in Israel proper was partly secured by a policy of
ethnic cleansing. It resulted in the acquisition of real property (land)
and improvents to that property. This is entirely leaves out the issue of
expropriating and enclosing commons that belonged to Arab communities for
settlement.
The fact of the matter is that in light of precident set by the world
Jewish community the Palestinians and their estates displaced as a result of
actions taken by Israel do indeed have a *legal right* to return of their
rightful property and to take up residence in such properties.
It is hypocritical for Israel to refuse to recognize the legal rights of
the indigenous people of Palestine displaced by the Israeli state.
However, recognizing the existence of the right, in principle, is a far cry
from actually honoring it in practice. It is evident to everyone that Israel
cannot tolerate the return of any meaningful fraction of the displaced who
have a right to return. In light of that irreducible political reality,
Palestinians need to accept reparations in lieu of return and Israel need to
pay reasonable compensation.
