On Friday 14 September 2001 19:27, you wrote:
> 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.
Excuse me?!
Your position then is that Israel does not have "title" to the post-67
territories but gets to keep them anyway *because* the Hashimite Kingdom or
Jordan renounced its territorial claim in favor of the stateless Palestinian
nation in keeping with Arab League resolutions?
That's a nice piece of sophistry.
Can the Jordanian Monarch accept return of the West Bank territories and then
directly transmit sovereignty to Palestinian representatives based on his own
role as a sovereign?
> > 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*
Why?
> > > 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...
You realize that this is close to saying that the leader made concessions but
they were paper concessions because the Knessit would never ratify them
anyway.
>
> > > > 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!
That would be circa 1880 CE.
> > 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).
Somehow I doubt that moving an emabssy to Jerusalem is validation of a
historic claim so much as a diplomatic decision contingent on real policy.
> > > > 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.
You are dealing with Arabs. The delegation opposite needs to realize that
recognition of the priciple is a point of honor. The Arab can then be
magnanamous by agreeing to put aside their right in the interest of a peace
settlement and accept monetary, territorial, or hydrological compensation in
return for resting their rightful claim to return of real property.
