On 14 Sep 2001, at 19:15, Trent Shipley wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > AHA! The money side...Yes...fair compensation WAS offered in
> > exchange for the right to return - in line with international law!
>
> I was not aware of this. Have you any more details?
Not handy..my research materials on the matter are in storage in
Israel. But yes, it was and it was one of the nearly un-repeatable
offers...
> > No, it was called a war. A war designed to commit Genocide. The West
> > Bank PROPERLY should return to Jordan! Under internation law, as we
> > have not officially anexed most of the west bank, it is not ours to
> > give away! Israel took that land in a war, and Israel - as every
> > country - has a recognised legitimate security interest.
>
> Jordan has renounced its claim to the West Bank.
Under international law, that dosn't matter much, since Israel never
formally annexed much of the West Bank and they were the last
state to hold it.
> The estates of 1948 Palestinian refuges have the legal right to the
> return of their property in Israel. (Israeli Arabs do not have this
> right because they never became absentee owners and Israeli policy was
> not to dispossess indigenous people who stayed more-or-less put.)
*sighs*
> > The proposal was to deal with the de-facto situation - each side
> > would own the land where there was the majority of their population,
> > and minorities in those areas would be moved. More Isralies than
> > Palestians, I might add - and it was AMAZINGLY unpopular is Israel,
> > and I doubt it will be repeated in a decade.
>
> This was just before the Barak-Arafat talks broke down?
Yes, Barak put the LOT on the table...it's doubyful he'd hve survived
an election given the amoutn of people he'd have annoyed even if
he HAD carried it off...
> > > 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.
> >
> > No, they can be offered fair compensation instead, which WAS
> > offered!
>
> No, they have a legal right to return an repossess real property of
> their respective estates. If they or their soverign collective freely
> accepts compensation then the compensation is defined as "fair" and
> the matter is put to rest (in theory). Were I a Palestinian
> negotiator, accepting compensation and fixing the amount of
> compensation would all be barganing points that I would try to recycle
> into more meaningful concessions from the opposite delegation.
Read up on your international law. Also, we offered all we could,
indeed more than that and too much IMHO. We're dealing with a
religious people, a significant majority of who HATE Israel. I want
peace, but not at any price.
> > > It is hypocritical for Israel to refuse to recognize the legal
> > > rights of
> > > the indigenous people of Palestine displaced by the Israeli state.
> >
> > "indigenous". Right. The Israelie clame predates those of any
> > surviving people.
>
> C.1880 Jews would have constituted a relatively small fraction of the
? We're talking thousands of years BCE!
> Jews in general do have an historic claim to Palestine
> but it is an archeological and documentary-mythic claim and not a
> claim to be the majority indigenous people in the land at the end of
> the Ottoman age.
Said claim has been accepted by all the states which have
recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital (some have not, even
today - recognising Tel Aviv instead).
> > > 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.
> >
> > And it WAS offered! That's the thing.
>
> If you say so. Everything I heard was that the Israeli delegation
> refused to even discuss the matter. Compensation would tacitly
> recognize a right-to-return in principle. My impression was that the
> Israeli delegation (and Barak) explicitly refused to even admit to a
> right of return in principle.
Yes, they refused to admit a right to return, but they DID talk
compensation.
Andy
Dawn Falcon
