For the record the arabs had nothing to do with WWI nor WWII, nor with anti-semitism in Europe The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection therefore had precious little reason to sympathise with a plan forced upon them by the main culprits (Old Powers and colonists), Isn't that ironic how quickly your purported support for international laws and UN resolutions disappears when it's about the resolution that partitioned Palestine and created Israel, how quickly you come up with excuses and apologies for countries that violated these laws and resolutions. Double standard anyone? please let us know more about the fate of the jewish refugees... i say this without irony... This emigration began in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab / Israeli War and was caused by two converging processes. Firstly, the governments and populations in Arab countries discrimination against their Jewish citizens escalated significantly. Harassment, persecution and the confiscation of property followed. Secondly, a Zionist drive of Jewish immigration from Arab lands to Israel began...several Arab countries began to take a severe attitude against Jews who operated Zionist activities within countries and to encourage their emigration to Israel. Arab riots against Jews appeared to spread throughout the Arab world, and there were intensified riots in Yemen and Syria in particular. In Libya, Jews were deprived citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized. As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate and they were not allowed to take all their property...By 1951, about 30 percent of the population in Israel was accounted for by Jews from Arab countries and about 850,000 Jews emigrated from Arab countries between 1948 and 1952. During this time 586,269 Jews came to Israel from Arab countries, and 3,136,436 people live in Israel today including their offspring, which account for about 41 per cent of the total population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands i don't think its smart to say that refugees have no one but themselves to blame... An overwhelming majority of arabs fled Israel on their own after being encouraged and assured by arab leaders that they would return with a victory within a couple of weeks. why didn't you start with this then instead of throwing bullets left right & center??? You named the thread "The right of return", you did not name it "Compensation...". These are two totally different things. my suggestion is that sufficient compensation should be enough for most palestinians to waive their right of return and accept that the outcome is "fair enough". Where did you get the idea that palestinian leaders are willing to discuss the possibility of compensation and give up the right of return? Unfortunately it's wishful thinking. As far as Israel is concerned the only thing that's off the table is the actual right of return. Israel would indeed be interested in paying off the refugees and putting this whole matter to rest but the Palestinians don't seem to be quite ready just yet. Of course you don't need to take my word for it as compensation for the refugees was explicitly included in Barak/Clinton peace proposal in 2000: "All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments within the limits of its resources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Refugees_and_the_right_of_return You know how well the proposal was received by Arafat who walked away without a counter-offer.
i fully support international laws and UN resolutions, and the ICC etc. Your assurance rings hollow given that in your previous post you justified, found understandable and blamed on the west illegal actions of the arab world when they ignored the Partition resolution and broke all international laws by invading Israel in 1948. ok, that's pretty bad too, no question, and deserves to be heard as well It's pretty bad indeed but somehow I have no doubt that it will not be heard from you and in all your future posts you'll be talking about palestinian refugees and Israeli aggression without mentioning jewish refugees and arab aggression. what could have arafat said if a majority of palestinian refugees had been willing to waive their right against adequate compensation? That's exactly what I was saying, the Palestinians are NOT willing to waive their right of return and accept financial compensation, your attempts to blame it on Israel are absurd and intellectually dishonest given that Israel actually did propose compensation. the difficulty here is one of negotiation dynamics and jockeying for position of strength etc... Oh yeah, walking out without a counter-offer and starting an intifada the way Arafat did was a negotiating technique. Another nice one! LOL and even then, some people may still want to choose to return, and where that falls within the right criteria from a demographic standpoint, it would be just to allow them to return and recover their properties, or be compensated for them if recovery's impossible... It's a very convoluted way to say that you still want the right of return without saying it. I was trying to explain to you that it's a non-starter, that no one in Israel is naive or suicidal enough to ever agree to this, that Israel did offer to resettle a small number of refugees and compensate others, that that proposal was rejected by Palestinians, that any insistence on the right of return will only delay the creation of a Palestinian state. Too bad my explanations fell on deaf ears.
thanks for Camp David link though... "Refugees and the right of return Due to the first Arab-Israeli war, a significant number of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes inside what is now Israel. These refugees, numbering over four million today (but 700,000 at the time), comprise about half the Palestinian people. Since that time, the Palestinians have called for full implementation of the right of return, meaning that each refugee would be granted the option of returning to his or her home, with property restored, or accept compensation instead. Israelis asserted that allowing a right of return to Israel proper, rather than to the newly created Palestinian state, would mean an influx of Palestinians that would fundamentally alter the demographics of Israel, jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character and its existence as a whole. The Israelis also argued that a larger number of Jewish refugees had been pushed out of Arab countries since 1948, and were not compensated, and that most of them ended up in Israel. At Camp David, the Palestinians maintained their traditional position that the right of return be implemented. To address Israel's demographic concerns, they promised that the right of return be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would channel the majority of refugees against the option of returning to Israel.[5] According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to discuss privately a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel.[6] The Israeli negotiators denied that Israel was responsible for the refugee problem. In the Israeli proposal, a limited number of refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification. All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments within the limits of its resources.[7] ...continued" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit unfinished business mesays... am off for now, any other opinions welcome... cheers
I wonder what would have happened if 150 million indians refuges (remember, Indians lived on america and owned the land way before the first settlers came to america and slaughtered them), were to request the right to return. actually, why be drastic, I shouldn't compare percentage, it's known that the muslims make much more children then Indians. Let's say 50 million, 5 million... Lets say it's only for reunion of illegal aliens, not something that would change the demographic and society structure of the country. Were are all those righteous, anti-semetic idiots that would publicly say the US should accept those people?
yeah, strangely enough that's exactly what King Abdullah told the american people in his 1947 address... wonder what those righteous anti-arab "semetic" idiots were thinking at the time hey sandaq... but lets not be drastic. its known you guys don't all have brains... you just run around like blue-arsed flies calling everybody else "anti-semetic" when not crying for mommy... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1491752#post1491752 at least now you know the answer to your question sandaq, no need to ask mommy...
and for people who can't click on links for fear an "anti-semetic" BOOOH! puppet may pop up, here goes:
Old news, which doesn't reflect the curent status of the land. Everyone with a bit of intelligence, good english, and the desire to read history books, can scribble proof of either us or them right or wrong. You can bring as many long an tidious artiles as you want. The fact remains that accepting 4 millions refuges into Israel will alter it's fabric of sociaty and not even the Arab-Israeli citicens want that. I'm sorry that the the arab nations have attacked us at 1948, I'm sorry that the arab that lived here chose to leave because they were afraid of war and though we were to loose, I'm sorry that they found them selves on the border in a refuges camps for 40 year, not thinking about doing something with there lives. That's all the fault of me and my people, but hey... we'er stronger, we've propspect, screw them.