Olmert Rejects Palestinian Right of Return--NYT

[Malikshah]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-mideast.html?hp

By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: March 30, 2007

TEL AVIV, March 30 — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in interviews published today that Israel would not allow a single Palestinian refugee to return to what is now Israel and that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugees, whose plight resulted from an attack by Arab nations on the fledgling state.

He also said that a renewed Arab consensus on a peace plan is encouraging, because “a bloc of states is emerging that understands that they may have been wrong to think that Israel is the world’s greatest problem.”

Mr. Olmert, pointing to the new Arab concern, led by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, about the nuclear ambitions of Iran, called the shift “a revolutionary change in outlook.”

OK-- The plight resulted from the May 15 attack by Arab nations? Anything about what took place in the weeks before? The few hundred thousand refugees already created *prior* to May 14-15?

Olmert--your true colors are showing. Talk about never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

[youngdem]

1. What a hypocritical asshole

So I guess this prick expects that Palestinians respect the Citizens of Israels' 'right to return' to their historic homeland without the same rights extended in return?

What a fucking asshole.



And some Israelis wonder why peace has been illusive for them. :crazy:



We need to face the fact that Israel will never act in an even handed manner towards the Palestinians if they can continue to wield our army and our treasury as their own weapon without cost to them.

[Lurking Dem]

8. I find it amusing

that people prattle on about hypocrisy while supporting the establishment of a Judenfrei Palestine.

[Malikshah]

9. Do you mean to say that things like that are amusing? Or that

the Palestinians to a human are calling for the removal of every Jewish person from Israel?

Just wondering, as both are heinous and quite hard to believe.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

17. Just what are you saying then?

Do you support removing Jews from all settlements?

Do you think some Jews should be allowed to stay in the resulting Palestinian territories after some actual borders are established?

Please expand.

BTW - You failed to answer my questions on that other thread. I guess I shouldn't expect anything here either.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Answer

No

Yes

I wasn't talking about my own views...

btw - you failed to answer my questions on that other thread. I answered yrs and explained why it wasn't a question that had a yes or no answer.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I quoted yr exact words...

And as yr not denying that you said it or you think that way, how on earth do you turn around and accuse me of twisting etc???

[breakaleg]

32. Removing illegal settlers is now extermination? That's hilarious!

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yep, and saying that anyone who opposes the occupation supports extermination...

..is apparently an acceptable thing to say in this forum :(

[Lurking Dem]

22. Are Jews going to be allowed to live

in an established Palestine?

Can I get Right of Return to any of the various Arab held countries that my family was kicked out of? Will I be able to move to Hebron as a free citizen of Palestine? East Jerusalem?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Why ask Malikshah?

That's a question for any future Palestinian govt and no-one here has a crystal ball...

[breakaleg]

30. That's no a question anyone here can answer. But if you are asking we believe they should, then

I would say that if they can live in peace with their neighbors, without an army in between, then in theory they should be welcome.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. The poster you were replying to wasn't prattling on...

Can you explain what you mean by supporting the establishment of a Judenfrei Palestine? You claimed back when the disengagement happened that the removal of settlers from Gaza was ethnic cleansing, so does that mean you think any dismantling of settlements is an attempt to make Palestine 'judenfrei'?

[Englander]

78. "Aryanization"

Lebensraum, Germanization, Judenrein

>snip

Judenrein & Judenfrei

"The Darkness was so dense that people could not see one another"

The most central concept in Aryanization to be understood is that of "Judenrein". The word comes from Juden referring to the Jews; and "rein" referring to purification. This term is often translated "Jew-free" or the removal of Jewish citizens from occupied territories and Germany. The root of the term rein goes a great deal farther, though. "Rein" refers to the removal of an impurity. 2"Judenfrei or Jew-free bears a slightly different connotation than Judenrein: to merely free Europe of all the Jewish citizens who lived there and helped build Europe was not enough for the Reich: they wanted the blood lines of Europe free of any trace of Jewish blood, or what we now understand as DNA. The Reich wanted no trace of their heritage left. Early laws in Germany before the war, vehemently forbade inter-marriage of Aryans and Jews. Even dating was discouraged, and sometimes public humiliation was directed by soldiers and police towards inter-racial couples. The Endlosung or "Final Solution" of the Jewish 'Problem" instigated by Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann and Heydrich primarily, was the plan of action meant to bring about not only the ridding of Jews from Europe but the ridding of Jewish blood from Europe. See also, Eugenics and Root Race TheoryThe hope of totally erasing Jewish bloodlines carried over into the killing centers, or Concentration Camps: Men and Women were separated; husbands and wives separated; and the effort to kill the Jewish children of Europe was indicative of the Nazis medieval attempt to eradicate all Jewish heritage and commit Genocide in proportions which had never even been discussed. As many as 2/3 of the Jewish population of Europe was erased: many others fled the continent. A few Jewish children were left in communites and several thousand were hidden or given refuge. The Reich believed that when the blood lines of the "root race" of the Jews was totally annihilated, a higher level Aryan race would emerge; and a new age would be ushered in.

http://www.shoaheducation.com/aryan.html

[breakaleg]

2. So then Israel doesn't want peace. Let's not pretend anymore. nt

[Tom Joad]

3. Olmert rejects all human rights for Palestinians. What's new?

But yes, this but one more example of Israeli rejectionism that has doomed the chances for peace for decades.

[kaal]

4. I guess he'd also reject....

.... compensation for German Jews that survived the holocaust!


The Palestinians refugees must either have the right to return to their "homeland" or be compensated for their loss.

[papau]

5. A "just" solution is compensation - he did not reject compensation - but Hamas

has rejected the Arab Peace proposal because it uses the words "just compensation" rather than right of return.

If Hamas accepts the Arab peace proposal, we might have something to discuss.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Compensation is a just and plausible idea

but anybody who expects Israel to allow a right of return is going to wait a long, long time.

[papau]

13. True - I hope Hamas agrees with the Arab proposal this time. n/t

n/t

[Malikshah]

7. Where in this statement does Olmert refer to "just compensation"

Ehud Olmert said in interviews published today that Israel would not allow a single Palestinian refugee to return to what is now Israel and that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugees

Funny that...

Can we stick to the report from the NYT?

[papau]

11. No we can not stick to the report from a single source - even NYT. Read the history of what Isreal

has always offered since Oslo - it is compensation.

To try to discuss the topic ignoring that fact is either pretending or to be unaware of the situation.

[Malikshah]

15. Want to talk about unaware?

How about Plan D, implemented in the weeks leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel?
200,000+ refugees created in that campaign.

This directly refutes the statement found in the the report.

Oslo? Kind of hard to negotiate between parties when one recognizes the other's right to exist while the other merely recognizes the other's being the representative of a people. They're called the Declaration of Principles... Fun reading.
"Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements:

The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team (in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"), representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process. Accordingly, the two sides agree to the following principles: "

[papau]

18. How about the Arab attacks before Plan D - and numbers that are a con job -

there are some good histories that relate both sides from the Arab massacre of Jews at Hebron, and the Islamic leader that made broadcasts for Hitler, to the very real evil that was done on the road to Lebanon by the Israeli's at the end of the '48 battles.

But the history just gets both sides into a get even mode.

Better I believe is the pushing of the Taba almost accord that Arafat said he should have accepted, and then pushing the even better (to the Arabs) Geneva accord that was worked out by "private" citizens.

There can be peace - very costly because of "just compensation" to both the '48 refugees, and to the settlers in the West Bank - but the PA must decide it wants a real peace - and demanding a right of return means no peace - and once the PA accept Geneva the the US must force Israel to give up the settlements outside of the land exchanges outlined in Geneva.

But it will take a Democrat in the White house and a Democratic Party controlled Congress - and the EU's far left backing off their hate of all things Israeli (and for some all things Jewish).

[Malikshah]

21. In comparison? Naw--that's just a body counting procedure.

A couple of points, though.

If the Islamic leader referred to is the Mufti of Jerusalem, yup, he was vile--and folks like Nashashibi in the Mandate made as much of an effort to distance themselves as leaders of the Haganah did when Stern's little escapades in Europe came to light.

That little dog won't hunt w/ reference to discussion of the article.

The article refers to the apparent reasoning behind no right of return as being that Palestinians left after the invasion of Israel on May 15. Yup--lots left, and hundreds of thousands left *before* May 15 due to the systematic campaign of the Haganah. Recent scholarship shows that the JNF helped out in their own way by providing maps of Palestinian villages.

The point I initially made was not about "getting even"--it was about the perpetuation of the myth that the leadership of the Yishuv had nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians prior to the establishment of the state of Israel and the invasion of the neighboring Arab states.

[papau]

36. ? - I was not aware there was a disagreement on that - Israeli's even provided buses at the time.

but there was a call to flee and wait for the Arab victory - despite some interesting sites denying that. Indeed each side seems to deny a bit of history.

[Malikshah]

56. Really? Well frost my tips and call me Liza!

there was a call to flee and wait for the Arab victory

Each side seems to deny a bit of history???

So this makes it all even in the end? Thus giving credence to all out incorrect information?

That sort of logic leads folks down a heinous path that is unacceptable.

The facts that are documented by Flapan, Shlaim, and Pape about the events -- documented mind you-- cut through the rhetoric and myth-making. But, hey, if folks wish to go for the "fair and balanced" mindset that folks can agree to disagree...

That's on their head and conscience, not mine.

Enjoy the oblivion.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Sorry, but Israel has offered nothing since Oslo...

Let's keep in mind that at the final status stage of Oslo the take it or leave it offer from Israel didn't even touch on the refugees. I figure yr referring to the Taba talks as being an offer of compensation from Israel, but while the negotiators on both sides did touch on the refugee issue and make some headway, the Israeli govt never made an offer of compensation and since then has said things that make it very hard to believe that they have anything but an unbending and absolutist position when it comes to the refugee issue...

[papau]

19. At the end of Taba they were arguing about how many would get compensation and

who would administer it and the 20,000 Arab "right of return for humanitarian reasons" that the Arabs felt should be 30,000.

We came very close at Taba.

As the write up of Taba indicates - you are technically correct as to no offer in these areas - just discussion - but the deal was getting close to offer/counter-offer time. And those discussions were reported in the media - but you need Lexis to pull that fact up - I've tried Google and it does not bring it up.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. What Taba showed...

...was that Israelis and Palestinians can meet somewhere roughly approaching the middle, especially when the US is absent from negotiations. While nothing concrete came from the negotiations they should be the starting point of any new negotiations, which is why Olmert's comments on the refugee issue isn't particularly helpful, imo...

[papau]

37. I agree - and I agree that Bush has been a disaster for the negotiations. n/t

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

34. A related thread about the right of return...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x170586

It's very clear that Israel is much more interested in retaining territory and not even symbolically agreeing with the right of return than it is interested in peace...

[oberliner]

35. You mean Olmert, not Israel, don't you? What about Peres?

Peres warms to Saudi plan

Shimon Peres said the Saudi initiative for a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace has merits. Israel's vice premier said Thursday that while in principle he welcomes the Saudi initiative, which was first broached in 2002 and is being discussed at this week's Arab League summit in Riyadh, he discerns a take-it-or-leave-it approach on the part of its sponsors.

"I would say this: Let's hold negotiations. You come with your positions, and we will come with ours," Peres told Israel Radio. "I don't think we need to predetermine what we accept or don't accept. Each side should come with their own positions and negotiate from there."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100944.html


Israel, Arabs should have direct peace talks-Peres

DUBAI, March 29 (Reuters) - Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said Arabs and Israel should have direct talks on peace after Arab leaders on Thursday renewed a 2002 peace offer to the Jewish state.

"Let's sit together as we are supposed to and work on it as we did before with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians," he told Al Jazeera television in remarks dubbed in Arabic, but he did not say if Israel accepts or rejects the Arab bid.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29696049.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Nope. I meant Israel, which is why I said Israel n/t

[oberliner]

58. What are your thoughts on Labor?

Do you think if Labor were to win the next elections in Israel that they would have the same stance as Olmert regarding the Saudi proposal?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. I'd be hoping they'd differ from Olmert...

I honestly think that if Labor had won the last election we wouldn't be hearing things like we've heard from Olmert...

[pelsar]

39. israel is correct...

were not to interested in having missiles on our cities.....as the latest kassams have now fallen on ashkelon (shall we evacuate?)...and hamas and the saudi plan still have all palestinians return (non negotiable)....and the palestinians are still fighting each other in gaza, so we really dont know whos in charge and who to believe.


its going to be a while.....and the longer it lasts the worse it gets for the palestinians...

(and the egyptians have now beefed up their patrols along their border, and are not in a hurry to open up rafah)

[Violet_Crumble]

40. You are incorrect....

and hamas and the saudi plan still have all palestinians return (non negotiable)....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x170586


The article that started the thread proves that claim completely wrong...

[pelsar]

41. the article "proves" nothing...

given that neither hamas, the PA, the saudis wrote the article.....i tend to believe their spokesman, their pm, their leaders a bit more....they're usually a bit more clearer as to what they actually mean.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Of course that thread proves you wrong...

Are you saying that Ha'aretz is lying, pelsar? The article spells out very clearly why the scaremongering is a strawman:

'This scare campaign led by those who fear the peace process, which relies on the mythical danger that Resolution 194 poses to the State of Israel, has no basis, as revealed by a simple examination of the resolution insofar as it relates to this matter.

In 1948, some 720,000 Palestinian refugees left Israel in the midst of the war, according to data from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (Their number today ranges from an estimated 4 million to 5 million, and the refugees live primarily in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and the Gulf states.) Resolution 194, which is from the same period, states that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Arab states, which were then opposed to the arrangement, voted against the resolution, which spoke of an end to the conflict and a peace deal.

An analysis of the resolution shows that the choice of words is not coincidental. Permission to return needs to be granted by the sovereign authority of the Israeli government, as former foreign minister Abba Eban has noted. This means that it is not some natural, vested right. (For instance, an Israeli citizen is allowed to enter the United States but doesn't have the right to do so. If the American authorities refuse to permit entry, the Israeli cannot sue them in court for violating his rights.) Moreover, Resolution 194 uses the word "permitted," not "right."

Even Arab leaders, including Palestinian Authority heads and the Syrian government, were aware of the deliberate intent of the words. At the Arab League session of March 29, 2002, they demanded that, in addition to mentioning Resolution 194, King Abdullah's Saudi peace initiative should also mention Resolution 14/224B, which states that Resolution 194 should be interpreted as requiring recognition of the right of return. Former foreign minister Silvan Shalom and his colleagues don't know what top PA officials apparently know.

Therefore, Resolution 194 is nothing but a straw man. The combination of the three political plans - that of the Arab League, the Clinton plan and the Geneva initiative - is certainly capable of bringing about a comprehensive agreement in the Middle East that would include an end to mutual demands, arrangements for the property question and a resolution of the issues of Jerusalem and the settlements. '

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/841396.html

[pelsar]

43. i disagree with the analysis..

to differentiate from lying...or your "proof"

the orignial op states:

But in public, Mr. Olmert, like the Arab leaders, is sticking to an uncompromising line.

that uncompromising line is return of all the refugees... (again i prefer hamas words, i tend to think they're more believable...you seem not to-so are they lying?). And i wouldnt know what they're saying in private, since they arent telling me, are they telling you?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. It's not an analysis...it's pointing out something that's factual...

And the facts are that there is no other way for either of those resolutions to be interpreted. What you are clinging to, pelsar, is a strawman that has been proven to be nothing more than scare tactics...

[pelsar]

45. facts?

you've got to be kidding:

there is no other way for either of those resolutions to be interpreted.......

you should take a few course in law.....i believe one of the very first lessons is how easy it is to interpret anything in a different way.

Claiming there is only a single way to interpret anything in this conflict does not express much understanding of the various "players" and their cultures and their own particular view points. In fact is shows an amazing lack of patience and understanding for those actually involved.

The" white mans burden" of ethnocentricity was supposed to have been replaced with understanding that other cultures dont always see things the same way.....

[Violet_Crumble]

46. No. I'm not kidding. I'm talking about facts...

You and Hamas both choose to misinterpret those two resolutions and yr both very incorrect...

Claiming there is only a single way to interpret anything in this conflict does not express much understanding of the various "players" and their cultures and their own particular view points. In fact is shows an amazing lack of patience and understanding for those actually involved.

The" white mans burden" of ethnocentricity was supposed to have been replaced with understanding that other cultures dont always see things the same way.....

But you claim that there's only a single way to interpret anything in this conflict all the time in this forum, pelsar. What I'm trying to point out to you is that yr 'interpretation' of the resolutions concerning the right of return is just as incorrect as that of Hamas. Try reading the part of the article I posted for you and come back and explain exactly why you think it was incorrect...

[pelsar]

47. you have to admit..this is rather ironic...

You and Hamas both choose to misinterpret those two resolutions and yr both very incorrect...

an australian is telling an israeli and the "palestenian govt (hamas) that we're both misinterpreting the two resolutions.

here we are busy killing each other and in the end its all because that were "reading it wrong" (i might suggest that its the outsider that has the misunderstanding), and that were reading it very correctly as how it pertains to us.

_______

the difference is my interpretation is mine..and i shall claim that i am right as i sincerly believe so, what i dont do is claim that an interpretation of a resolution or an interpretation of an event is also a fact.....because it isnt.

hamas and i agree on this point it seems.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. What has my nationality got to do with anything???

Keep my nationality out of things, pelsar.

You haven't given an interpretation of the resolutions at all. And you are incorrect when you claim that they say that it means a physical right of return for all refugees. But you can explain to me how you manage to read those resolutions so that they are saying what you claim they say...

Uh, pelsar. I've seen you claim plenty of time that yr interpretations of an event are factual. Will you be needing links?

[pelsar]

51. nationality..being related to culture...

and yes ones culture has a tremendous amount of influence on how one see things:.....especially as it relates to us middle easterners who have a different take on certain things....and since for those who dont speak either language and require translations (which understandably means they have less info at their disposal), will have and even lesser understanding of the happenings...ones nationality/culture has its influence

....an austrialian telling the "locals" that we "dont understand" has an ironic ring to it

though if you want to search for when i claim interpretations are facts, be my guest...but I do differentiate between events that follow one another vs ones interpretations of what they mean. You will discover that i do seperate the two.

you dont seem to. (maybe its cultural)

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Nationality and culture have zero to do with UN resolutions...

So let's discard those attempts at condescending red herrings.

I asked you to explain how you could possibly interpret the two UN resolutions that deal with the Palestinian refugees as meaning a physical right of return for all refugees and their descendants. Are you going to explain it?

Of course there are plenty of examples here in this forum where you have claimed that yr take on events are facts, and I'll supply a whole bunch of examples for you if you continue to deny it...

[pelsar]

54. you really believe that dont you...

Nationality and culture have zero to do with UN resolutions.

its the way we intrepret them that counts....and we do so in different ways:

anybody who doesnt believe that, really has little business in this conflict.

UN resolutions are usually classic in the political language where everybody gets to find what they want.

but this is simply: cultural anthrophology 101.

but here i get to disappoint you (as you mentioned to me on a different thread. "i'm not interested"........... in banging about UN resolutions and their various interpretations, as to me it a rather pathetic word game). Hamas has made their stand clear, the saudis have as well, at least in public and so have we...and thats what interests me, what the actual players think and say.

Mr. Olmert was referring to the Riyadh summit of Arab nations that ended on Thursday, and he speaking to the Israeli daily Haaretz

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I'm pretty certain most people believe it too...

Culture has nothing to do with how UN resolutions are written or read by people. Or are you from a different culture than Avshalom Vilan, who was one of the authors of the article Cali posted that yr disagreeing with?

A suggestion: If yr not interested in 'banging' about UN resolutions, then it's probably not a good idea to enter discussions about them and then, when asked to explain why yr interpretation of them is what it is, claim yr not interested in talking about them anymore...

[pelsar]

57. i usually dont enter discussions about UN resolutions..

and what they mean (you brought it in to the discussion)

if you really think culture has nothing to do with UN resolutions that it would seem there is all around agreement on 242.....except that there isnt....

either that or all of those who disagree with your version simply "dont understand".......

[Violet_Crumble]

61. It's impossible to discuss the right of return...

and what it means without discussing the UN resolutions concerning it...

I'm at a total loss right now as to what you mean when you talk about culture. It's obviously not culture in the way I'm used to understanding it...

[pelsar]

67. the way words are read.....and what words mean....

same sentence means different things to different people....and a lot of that has to do with culture:

words like hunda and jihad are related to the sentence around them, and the way its said (hard to get that part down in writing)

right of return has several translations

defense is a real big one to have different meanings

justice is such a vague concept hooked into culture, and has so many different meanings that it has no place in a serious discussion about the middle east.
_______

really the UN resolutions have zero to do with the final outcome, i understand that it gives all the euros something to talk about, the reality is very different:

the final decisions will be a negotiation based on the self interests of the israelis and the palestinians.....no more and no less, neither really will have much to do with any UN decision.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. But you still haven't explained what you mean when you talk about culture...

I thought you were trying to say for example that Israeli culture leads people to interpret a UN resolution differently than, say, an Australian would. But then I figured that can't be what yr trying to say coz I pointed out to you that one of the authors of the article where you disagree with their interpretation is an Israeli. And then I remembered that there's some folk in Australia (mainly of the conservative variety) who rely on fearmongering to justify their own interpretations of the resolutions and I'm not seeing any space between them and you on this particular issue, so talking about culture just doesn't make sense.....


Right of return does not have several translations (apart from the handful of official UN languages it would have been released in). The right of return is something that's enshrined in international law....

What the final outcome of any negotiations will be is that there will be something similar to what was covered at the Taba talks, and something that does recognise the legality of the UN resolutions on the right of return. Olmert and his absolutionist NO is clearly not going to be the Israeli leader who will negotiate a solution to the refugee issue. That's going to take a leader who is willing to negotiate about it and who is willing to make it clear to Israelis who have fallen for the scaremongering that the right of return does not mean that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants will end up residing in Israel...

[cali]

49. Idiot.

His language is not only decidedly unhelpful, it's belligerent and demeaning to the Palestinians. Anyone truly interested in peace would not speak in such terms. He could easily have said: "We understand the pain of the Palestinians in regard to this issue, and we are willing to discuss compensation and a limited right of return that will not endanger the integrity of the Jewish state of Israel." Or something along those lines.

[pelsar]

52. thats olmert...

he speaks very belligerently.....which is one reason why i dont like him.

[TomClash]

50. This is one reason Arafat rejected Clinton's proposal

The Palestinians can never give up the right of return for the actual refugees, whose number is small and dwindling. They may be able to agree to forego the descendents' right of return for just compensation (guess who will pay for that?).

Actually, jews probably could live in the new Palestinian state - but they would have to swear allegiance to it and be subject to immigration laws like anyone else.

[Shaktimaan]

59. Arafat did say though,

that he didn't care about the refugees or right of return, that the sticking point was a deal he could live with regarding Jerusalem. (I'm paraphrasing obviously.)

They are going to have to give up right of return to Israel. Ultimately it will be better for them to have right of return to Palestine anyway as it will be accompanied by a huge cash settlement. This is a deal never offered to any of the Jewish refugees from Palestine or Arab lands. In all fairness, Israel should compensate Palestinian loss (which they already do regarding landowners who lost their property) and Arab states should compensate Israeli refugees (which is a fantasy.)

I agree with your statement about Jews in Palestine, but it will never happen. Even if they agreed to it they would be expelled or not be safe. Israel has offered this deal to Palestinians living in East Jerusalem with the added possibility of being non-national residents of Jerusalem who are not required to swear allegiance yet can still stay in Jerusalem. If it were possible, I also have no problem with this as an option for Hebron's Jews.

[TomClash]

62. The Palestinians have never given up the right of return

and Arafat explicitly told Clinton he could not agree to that.

In fact, the Palestinians should give up nothing - they've already given up recognition, which means the right to most of Mandatory Palestine - until they get a tangible commitment from Israel to withdraw behind the Green Line and dismantle all settlements. Then they should give up the right of return for all descendents.

Carter's book showed how intransigent the Israelis are, imposing scores of impossible and ridiculous demands and conditions, just to get to the heart of the negotiations.

Everyone knows the parameters of the deal. But Israel does not want a deal and it will only negotiate in good faith when it is forced to do so. And only the US is in a position to do that - for now - and I'm not optimistic. No US politician will exercise that pressure for fear of political reprisals in the US, like large sums of money going to the most pro-Israeli candidate, a fact of life in Democratic political circles.

Palestinians will not live under occupation or in the diaspora forever. Eventually, the horros of horros will occur - there will be a detonation of a one or more nuclear/chemical/biological weapons in Israel. Shin Bet and senior Israeli politicians are well aware of this possibility and are prepared to accept it if they cannot stop it.

[cali]

63. Who's going to use a nuclear weapon against Israel?

Detonate a nuclear weapon almost anyplace in Israel, and you effect Palestinians too. Not to mention that 20% of the Israeli population is Arabic. I don't see it happening.

And intransience is a two way street. I certainly think the Israeli should talk to the new Unity gov't, but if the Palestinians really wanted to call Israel out, they could simply recognize Israel within the Green Line.

[TomClash]

64. We may not want to see it happen

But it's a desperate measure for a desperate people and I think it is a distinct possibility. I would not be surprised to see these weapons introduced into the conflict.

As for your intransigence argument, Fatah recognized Israel and got nothing. Israel will deign to enter into negotiations if "recognized" by Hamas. What does Hamas get in return? Nothing. It is usually poor negotiating strategy to accept preconditions to negotiations.

[pelsar]

65. the palestenians arent "desperate"...

they live in poor conditions, they have limited freedoms etc, they have zero personal security in gaza....but desperate?....other peoples live in conditions far worse than the palestinians and they are not "desperate."....they are being taught and told that they are "desperate" and that they have no choices etc...but that is no more than what they are being taught.

Hamas doesnt have to recognize israel, it can go on with its policy of total removal of the state of israel....its just not a very smart choice

[cali]

66. Sorry, I think that's

just whacked. It is not likely that nuclear weapons will be introduced into the conflict anytime in the near future.

As for your simplistic view of the conflict, I really don't bother with people who have an utterly black/white good/evil view- whichever side they may be on.

[TomClash]

68. Read before you spew

I said nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. Here's a flash: some applications of these weapons might affect very few "Arabs." You figure it out. Israel takes the threat quite seriously and rightly so.

Simplistic? Maybe so. But it's not as if your position is exactly nuanced.

No matter who is posting you seem to revel in insulting the poster rather than presenting plausible arguments.

[cali]

71. Sorry, I think the concern

is over-hyped just as I think the threats here are over hyped. Does the Israeli gov't worry about it? I'm sure they do. Look at the U.S. gov't. How much of it is political posturing v. realistic fear?

As for "spewing". Yes, I'm sure you think that I do spew- which I find rich coming from you. And if you were honest with yourself, you might note that I am far less partisan and prone to throwing hyperbole and insults at either Palesiinians or Israels, than many around these parts.

If a post of mine is inappropriate, then it will be deleted. The post you pointed to is hardly high in invective.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. What do you mean when you call others partisan?

And if you were honest with yourself, you might note that I am far less partisan and prone to throwing hyperbole and insults at either Palesiinians or Israels, than many around these parts.

I'd be interested to know whether you see partisanship as being about a person's views on the conflict itself, or as you told me in a post last night, about our interactions on a personal level with other DUers in this forum. Because if it's the latter, then I totally disagree that yr far less partisan than many others in this forum, that's all..

[cali]

76. Former.

I thought that was clear by my post. And yes, I have little patience for those who dehumanize either Palestinians or Israelis, making sweeping statements such as "Palestinians just want to destroy Israel" or Israelis just want to steal all Palestinian land, and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. The former is the way I tend to define it as well...

The latter is the way you appeared to be defining partisanship last night in this post, so I thought I should ask you for clarification of what partisanship means to you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171427#171492

[Jim Sagle]

69. "Right of return" is an inherently Jew-hating, exterminationist concept

in intention, and in result if ever implemented.

Those who promote this noxious doctrine are indeed "showing their true colors."

[divineorder]

70. Jew Hating?

So loving Jews means having the dispersed Palestinians forever stateless and homeless. Why can't they at least return to an Palestinian state and rejoin their relatives? And the financial burden that other nations have taken on caring for and policing refugees they can't assimilate for various reasons has doubtless engendered resentment.

And Jews and Palestinians lived in peace before Zionists moved into the area, as joint subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. I think one of the main stumbling blocks

isn't just the thought of swarms of Arabs returning... (where would they go? 400 villages were destroyed!), but having to admit the NEED to return.

By agreeing to a right of return, there is the admission that those refugees were forced out.

Is Israel ready to change it's official narrative of 1948?

Doubt it.

Just as the Palestinians aren't quite ready to give up their narrative for compensation.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. What a stupid and ugly thing to say...

And very obviously not true. As quite a few posters here do understand what the Right of Return is and understand that it involves acknowledgement, some form of symbolic physical return of a number of refugees agreed to by Israel, and compensation and repatriation in third countries, the true colours are shown by those who imply that anyone supporting the Right of Return is antisemitic...

[cali]

77. Really?

Even if you're talking about people who are determined to see all the refugees and their decendants return to Israel, you're overstating it. Such a move would end the state of Israel as a Jewish nation, but it's not inherently "exterminationist".

And there are many, many people of good will- and I count myself in that number- who believe that Israel's recognition of the right, and granting of a limited right of return as well as compensation, is the right thing to do, both for Israelis and Palestinians.