There is no right of return. Period.

By Ted Belman

The LA Times continues with its pro-Palestinian advocacy and it misinformation. It recently published Will peace cost me my home? by Ghada Ageel who is a self professed “third-generation Palestinian refugee”. There are tens of millions of third generation refugees all over the world who neither claim a right of return nor would they ever claim to describe themselves that way. They and their parents have gotten on with their lives.

She demands that “Any Mideast pact must give Palestinians the right to return home.”

    But in 1948, in the first Arab-Israeli war, many people lost their lives defending our village from the Zionist militias. In the end, with their crops and homes burning, the villagers fled. My family eventually made its way to what became the refugee camp of Khan Yunis in Gaza. We were hit hard by poverty, humiliation and disease. We became refugees, queuing for tents, food and assistance, while the state of Israel was established on the ruins of my family’s property and on the ruins of hundreds of other Palestinian villages.

War always creates refugees who have similar stories to tell. Nothing unusual there but the war was started by her people and they are to blame for her grandparents tragedy.

    I raise this story today because it remains profoundly relevant to the Middle East peace process — and to help convey the deep-seated fears of Palestinian refugees that we will be asked to exonerate Israel for its actions and to relinquish our right to return home.

“Deep seated fears” after sixty years? Time does not stand still. Yet she continues to harbour a desire so strong that she “fears” it won’t be satisfied. Something wrong here. You would think that as a third generation Palestinian” she would be living a normal life.

    That cannot be allowed to happen. All refugees have the right to return. This is an individual right, long recognized in international law, that cannot be negotiated away. Palestinian refugees — and there are more than 4 million of us registered with the United Nations today — hold this right no less than Kosovar or Rwandan or any other refugees.

There is no truth to this whatsoever. Where are the LA Times fact checkers? Looking the other way as they always do.

For the truth I refer you to Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees: International Law and Humanitarian Considerations by Ami Isseroff.

The balance of this post is an extract therefrom.

Rights of Refugees under Resolution 194

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was passed immediately following the assassination of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte by Jewish extremists. Bernadotte had asked for return of all Arab refugees (but not Jewish refugees) and was going to recommend removing large areas of the Israeli state and returning them to the Arabs. The resolution reflected in part, UN anger at Israel for having allowed the assassination, but it did not reflect Bernadotte’s recommendations in full. Section 11 referred to the refugee problem:

    Resolves 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, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Notable in this wording, is the fact that a “right of return” was not mentioned, and the reference to “refugees,” rather than “Arab refugees” and “governments,” rather than the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Jewish refugees in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict is about equal to the number of Arab Palestinian refugees.

Bernadotte had recommended a much stronger resolution, but his reference to a “right” of return was rejected. The original wording of his report included this wording:

    “the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date… and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return…”

(Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, UN Doc. A/648 (18 September, 1948)

As this wording was rejected, the framers of resolution 194 apparently rejected the notion of a “right” of return. Likewise, reference to “Arab refugees” was omitted. It could not have been accidental.

All Arab states voted against Resolution 194, because it did not establish a “right of return,” and because it implicitly recognized Israel. Arab governments and Palestinians continued to reject resolution 194 until 1988. In that year, Yasser Arafat made a speech Recognizing Resolution 242 and implicitly accepting resolution 194. Until then, Arab Palestinians were officially not willing to “live in peace with their neighbors.” Arab governments are still unwilling to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees, nor is such a solution contemplated in Palestinian peace proposals.

To deal with the refugee problem, the UN created the UNRWA agency, which was thought to be a temporary measure until a permanent resolution of the refugee problem could be effected. Because Arab states refused any constructive solution, the “temporary” solution became permanent.

Resolution 194 is not International Law

Resolutions of the UN General assembly are not binding in international law, and therefore resolution 194 does not establish any principle of international law. Palestinian Arab advocates point out that Israel agreed to accept resolution 194 as a condition of its admittance to the UN, under Resolution 273. However, Israel accepted the resolution under its own interpretation. In any case, Resolution 273 is likewise a resolution of the General Assembly and therefore not international law.

Status of the Palestinian Refugees in International Law

Advocates of the Palestinian cause claim support from international laws and conventions applicable to refugees in general. However, examination of refugee conventions shows that precisely the opposite is true. For example, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, states:

    This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

That excludes Palestinian refugees who are receiving aid separately from the UNRWA. The same convention states:

    E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

Palestinian refugees in Jordan have obtained Jordanian nationality. About 1.5 million such “refugees” are included in official UN tallies of Palestinian refugees. Numerous Palestinians living in the United States have obtained United States citizenship, but claim “right of return.” None of them would be eligible for refugee status under ordinary international law.

The convention does not mention a “right of return,” but only mentions that refugees may not be forcibly returned to a country where they are liable to persecution.

In their treatment of Palestinian refugees, Arab states do not generally respect provisions of the treaty dealing with economic rights of refugees:

    Article 21. Housing

    As regards housing, the Contracting States, in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances.

    Article 22. Public education

    1. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals with respect to elementary education.

    2. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees treatment as favourable as possible, and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, with respect to education other than elementary education and, in particular, as regards access to studies, the recognition of foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees, the remission of fees and charges and the award of scholarships.

    Article 23. Public relief

    The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.

In Lebanon, the entire responsibility for education and housing of Palestinian refugees is placed on UNRWA. Refugees are confined to the UNRWA camps insofar as possible, and given as little assistance as possible in integration within Lebanese society.

No international convention deals with the status of third generation refugees or “refugees” by intermarriage. This case is unique to the Palestinians.

A search of the Internet for terms refugees “Right of Return” will display exclusively or almost exclusively Web pages that deal with Palestinian refugees. “Right of Return” is never discussed for Germans expelled from the Sudetensland or Silesia in 1945, for Poles who fled the Soviets when they annexed parts of Eastern Poland, for Russians who fled from former Soviet Republics upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Right of Return was discussed but never implemented in solution of the Cyprus problem. Return of refugees is being implemented in part in breakaway parts of former Yugoslavia, but in these cases there is no doubt that the returnees are willing to recognize the existing government and “live in peace with their neighbors.” The claim that Right of Return is a universally applied principle of international law has now basis.

Palestinian supporters claim that the right of return is recognized in international in human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights However the applicability of these provisions to Palestinian Arab refugees is in doubt.

According to Article 12(4) of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

    “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

To whom does the article apply? Stig Jagerskiold, an early interpreter, wrote:

    This right is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claim of masses of people who have been displaced as a byproduct of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries. Whatever the merits of various “irredentist” claims, or those of masses of refugees who wish to return to the place where they originally lived, the Covenant does not deal with those issues and cannot be invoked to support the right to “return.” These claims will require international political solutions on a large scale.” (Freedom of Movement, in The International Bill of Rights 166, at 180 (Louis Henkin ed., 1981).

Likewise, another expert has noted:

    “There is no evidence that mass movements of groups such as refugees or displaced persons were intended to be included within the scope of article 12 of the Covenant by its drafters”

    (Horst Hannum, The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice (1987) p.59)


I am greatly indebted to Ami Isseroff for this excellent exposition of the law. There is more to read before and after the part extracted.

December 28, 2007 | 21 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

21 Comments / 21 Comments

  1. Bill: Sorry to have to disagree with what you are saying:

    I agree with this:

    Geopolitically speaking might makes right

    I disagree with this:

    International law should be the only relevant bases upon which one should find whether the Palestinians have a “right of return”.</blockquota

    Yamit, your 3 posts are irrelevant and non-responsive to my point.

    ? Even our founding fathers accepted a law higher than man made Laws of which the colonists were in violation of when they began their rebellion against England! International Law is always made and favors the existing ower structure at any point in time it is neither fairer nor just and is always manipulated to favor in most cases those ideas and values of the most powerful .

  2. Yamit, your 3 posts are irrelevant and non-responsive to my point.

    International law should be the only relevant bases upon which one should find whether the Palestinians have a “right of return”. Instead, international law is ignored in favor of the political and economic self interest factors that account for national attitudes, perspectives, positions and policies.

    The Palestinians do reference international law by continuing to harp away that their right derives from UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The world nods their collective heads in agreement without even bothering to look at UN GA Resolution 194 and ignoring that said Resolution has never been implemented in order that rights be given.

    Geopolitically speaking might makes right and to that extent the Palestinian “right of return” has gained acceptance as an existing right, notwithstanding that there appears to be no basis for such right in international law.

  3. Bill or this part:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare

  4. Rights, be they personal, national and international are found in law. Rights ordinarily do not exist if law does not recognize the existence of such rights. Rights of the person or the state non-existent at law, but demanded ordinarily never become a right unless and until the state grants such right demanded to the people, to the state itself or the state gains such right internationally by lawful treaties with other states or international is amended or added to in order to recognize such right

    Really? What about this!

    hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  5. There is a Palestinian right of return for so long as the world gives credence to that claimed right, regardless whether it actually exists.

    Rights, be they personal, national and international are found in law. Rights ordinarily do not exist if law does not recognize the existence of such rights. Rights of the person or the state non-existent at law, but demanded ordinarily never become a right unless and until the state grants such right demanded to the people, to the state itself or the state gains such right internationally by lawful treaties with other states or international is amended or added to in order to recognize such right.

    It seems obviously logical therefore that to answer the question whether or not the Palestinians have a “right of return” that one would look to international law and only international law to find the answer.

    That we find is not the case. In fact the world is giving credence to this Palestinian claimed right and they are doing so by virtually ignoring international law.

    Israel herself has failed to deny the existence of the Palestinian “right of return”. For a great many years Israel pretty much ignored this Palestinian claimed right. More recently, Israel has stood her ground against this Palestinian claimed right, not based on the denial of its existence at international law, but rather making the argument that to give full effect to that claimed right would destroy Israel demographically.

    In furtherance of that argument, Israel has agreed a number of times in her negotiating positions to allow a token number of Palestinian refugees back into Israel. That position by Israel however gives credence to the world belief that such “right of return” as claimed by the Palestinians is in fact a right.

    The net result is that while Israel does not deny such Palestinian right exists, Israel denies the Palestinians the fulfillment of their right on the grounds that that would destroy Israel.

    Since Israel is not denying the existence in fact and law of the Palestinian claimed “right of return”, it is hard to expect that the rest of the world is going to deny the existence of such right.

  6. Once there was a politician who was out on the campaign trail, trying to collect some votes. The politician got lonely and bored so he cried “Peace with the Palestinians”. The voters rushed out to see what was going on. The politician was very pleased with this result. A few days later he was once again lonely and bored so he tried his little trick. Once more the voters rushed out to see what was going on.

    And so it went on – every time the politician got lonely or bored, he cried “Peace with the Palestinians” and the voters came and returned sorely disappointed.

    And then one day, a real live, unarmed Palestinian politician came out of the woods waving a white flag. The politician happily cried out “Peace with the Palestinians” but by this time the voters were up to his tricks and nobody came.

    So the politician sat down with the peaceful Palestinian. They talked and talked but nobody came. They drew maps and divided the country. They signed agreements and broke them. They fought and made up. They gave each other medals and citations for their diplomatic skills. They established institutes for peace, projects for peace and conducted marathon peace summits. Nobody came but eventually they stopped caring.

    Legend has it that to this day, somewhere in Israel, deep in the desert, there are two politicians, one Israeli and one Palestinian, arguing about peace and kicking up sandstorms.

    The moral of the story is this:

      1 – If you want to have peace, keep the politicians out of it, especially if one of them is called Peres.
      2 – Palestinians who want peace exist only in fiction, for all we know.
      3 – People learn more quickly in fables than in real life…
  7. Another Monday, another week. Most people hate their lives, hate going to work, and hate Mondays. I’m lucky enough to be different. I work in a great place – a Human Rights NGO, based in Occupied (Eastern) Jerusalem, with great people – lots of conscientious Jews, and poor, oppressed Arabs. We do our best to pay them back but we know and feel that it’s not enough. For instance, in the beginning of the week I always make it a point to give Ahmad (I forget his last name, Abu-something, I guess) a great big human rights hug. I tell him that every time I see him in the beginning of the week my heart leaps with joy that he survived another weekend of occupation – soldiers sniping at innocent Arabs, settlers lynching them right and left– it’s a wonder they survive at all! Ahmad always acts embarrassed, and shies away from me – maybe he’s homophobic? – I don’t blame him though – who wouldn’t be under such conditions? Anyway, he’s so scared of the Shin- Beth (Israeli Homeland Security) that he tells me that he is far more likely to get killed by a bullet from a Palestinian gunman in his town, than he is to get killed by Israeli soldiers who are too scared to shoot anyway. I play along , wink and tell him I understand.

    Inside the building I walk briskly along the corridor – no time to waste in the struggle for human rights! – until I reach my small office, guarded zealously by the lovely Samira – my fetching Arab secretary. Between you and me, she can’t type to save her own life, and she is as muddle-headed as any woman I have ever met – oops – mustn’t let the feminists hear that kind of talk, can we? – but really, what should I do? How can I throw her out on the streets – and make her a refugee all over again? Is it her fault she has no education, and no brains? Of course not, it’s the occupation. So I type up my own reports at home at night. I don’t mind – that’s what human rights are all about – it’s the sacrifice we have to make in order to make this world better, isn’t it?

    At least she makes awesome coffee. I can’t get enough of it. Yeah, one thing about these Arabs – they make great coffee. I really, really love these people. These poor, oppressed people. It just infuriates me to think of all their suffering, the humiliation, the condescension they have to face each day in our racist country. Armed with this anger, and the burning, passionate hatred of all that is Jewish and Evil , I begin my days work.

    Read More……

  8. Sociologist Uncovers New Israeli Abomination: IDF Soldiers Not Raping Arab Women!

    ISL – Jeruslaem

    Finally, some good news for women: Israeli sociologist Tal Nitzan, conducting groundbreaking research, has discovered that, contrary to popular belief, getting raped and not getting raped feel exactly the same. The prize-winning research compared the experiences of women who were gang-raped by Serbian soldiers to the experiences of Palestinian women who weren’t raped at all by Israeli soldiers, reaching the surprising conclusion that the experience of both groups of women is exactly the same, “This is why we have scientific research – to challenge our traditional beliefs and discover the truth, using the best political methods available,” said Nizan, a graduate student in the Hebrew University.

    Nizan says that the most difficult thing in the research was hearing firsthand about the horrifying experiences of the poor Arab woman who did not get raped, “The pain, the suffering and the sheer degradation of this experience is hard to believe,” said Nizan,”For most Arab women, the scars of not being raped will never heal – this is just one more appalling by-product of the occupation.”

    In Israel, many were shocked and dismayed at the result of the research. IDF Chief, Gabi Ashkenazi, issued an apology to all Arab women for not getting raped and promised to conduct a thorough investigation as to the reasons, “Obviously, we are doing the best we can to encourage our soldiers to rape Arab women in order to avoid offending them,” Ashkenazi said, “After all, as Nizan has pointed out, the reality of occupation is difficult enough without having to go through the life-scarring experience of not getting raped as well.”

    MK Galon from Meretz praised Nitzan and thanked her for uncovering this dehumanizing behavior, “This just proves what we’ve been saying all along – the occupation is corrupting Israeli society.”
    Galon went on to suggest

    that Israel establish Non-Rape Crisis Centers in the occupied territories in order to treat the hundreds of thousand of women who have not been raped by Israeli soldiers, “It’s the least we can do,” said Galon.
    However, others seem prepared to go one step further, “These soldiers should be investigated,” said Ahmad Tibbi, “And if they are found guilty of not raping our women – they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes against humanity.
    “We demand equality,” Tibi said, “Our woman are just as rape-worthy as any other woman and besides, when we have the opportunity to rape Jewish women we do it, so why can’t Israeli soldiers show some humanity, some compassion, and rape our women when they get the chance? What is wrong with you guys?” asked Ahmad Tibi.

    Good question: what is wrong with us Jews?

    What is wrong is that we are paying for this filthy piece of propaganda, thinly disguised as research, and that these researchers are currently on strike in order to get more taxpayer money in order to produce more political research, “proving” whatever cockamamie ideas that are currently acceptable by the world-wide moon-bat community.

    In Hebrew they say that shit rises to the top. I guess that this research has, at least, proven that adage quite true. But it still wasn’t worth it.

    Big big hat-tip goes to Mother in Israel for reporting this and translating to Hebrew from Makor-Rishon.

    World-Wide Anti-Israeli Efforts Slowing Down Due to Senior Lecturer’s Strike

    Posted by satiricohen at 1:10 PM||Permalink

  9. Your AshkeNazi terrorists bulldoze, rape, slaughter and genocide for 60-odd years.

    Lefty Israel Study-Why Jews Don’t Rape: They have an agenda!

    Here we have it. The defining moment in leftarded Jewicidal thinking. A leading Israeli university has conducted a study to determine why Jewish soldiers don’t rape Pali Arab women, you know – spoils of war. As far as the left is concerned, Islamic barbarism has effectively become the norm so when decent, honorable (Jewish) men do not behave according to savage norms, there must be an ulterior motive. Seriously.

    Hebrew University has jactually gave an award to student Tal Nitzan’s essay that alleges that Israeli soldiers were “racists for not raping Arab women.”

    Perhaps Jewish men don’t rape the women because they are good, kind and decent moral men. Not possible? For this they did a study? A study? This is why Israel is in such trouble. Leftarded Jews hold sway in their media, universities and government.

    I think the leftarded Jews ought to convert to Islam and move to the Muslim countries whose outrageous crimes against humanity they sanction and where they inevitably belong.

    Hebrew University Paper Finds: IDF Has Political Motives for Not Raping Israel National News

    Hebrew University committee prize-winning paper finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.

    ( A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers’ committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.

    The abstract of the paper, authored by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, notes that the paper shows that “the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals.”

    The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: “In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”

    The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers’ eyes.

    Leftist psychotic thinking continues. Over at “A Mother in Israel”

    The Israeli Sociology Association awarded the report a mark of excellence.

    Here’s a quote from the study:

    As Israelis/Jews, who view themselves as moral, the soldiers find it difficult to commit martial rapes. It seems that (in Bosnia) men identified themselves as Serbians through committing public group rapes of Bosnian women; Jews identify themselves as non-rapists, non-assimilationists, as a nation unique in the embrace of God. Rape and non-rape are two sides of the same coin, which in different situations the use of either one can lead to the same results. [emphasis and translation mine]

    Nitzan notes that the Israeli army is the only one not to commit mass rapes when it occupies another country.

    Check out: Israel Satire Laboratory’s take on it. Too sick to believe.

    UPDATE: Phyllis Chesler’s take on it here.

    Nitzan writes that the “lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.” Since Israel fears the Palestinians demographically, IDF soldiers have been trained not to rape the women in order to avoid creating new Palestinians and little intifaders. (Has Nitzan never heard about Palestinian honor killings in which pregnant-out-of-wedlock or adulterous women are murdered by their families who love them too much?) Nitzan alleges that the “lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences—just as organized military rape would have done.”

    Thus, Israeli racism, which “de-humanizes” Palestinian women, suppresses Jewish male lust—which proves that Israeli soldiers are racist oppressors. As the only army that does not, apparently, rape, Nitzan fails to grapple with other reasons for this, including the possibility that Israeli soldiers are acting in an ethical and civilized manner.

  10. The same guy also wrote,

    Can you cite me chapter and verse in your chronicle of fairy tales that says “Vanilla Imperialists from Europe have the right to steal the land of hte indigenous inhabitants because of a phony, sect-based claim to land that never belonged to them.”

    The whole Zionism shell game is but an anti-Semitic tactic for White Europeans to steal land from Semitic peoples.

  11. The guy who sent me this must be a friend of Jerimiah Wails.

    Your AshkeNazi terrorists bulldoze, rape, slaughter and genocide for 60-odd years. To you and other sect-based cultists and religious fanatics, this may be kosher. But Palestinians will reclaim their stolen land regardless of the name given for such action.

    It proves that those people who argue in support of the “right of return” do so without regard for whether it exists in fact but with the intention of destroying Israel.

    I received a similar email from Jerimiah. Not only was it odious but it was threatening as well. Both these guys sound like Nazis. Did I say “sound like”.

  12. Bill most of the constraints on Israel and her decisions are self imposed. There is always in the back of those constraints FEAR, INDECISION, POLITICAL SELF INTEREST AND WRONG MISGUIDED PRECONCEPTIONS!!!!
    we have a saying here that THEY LEARNED NOTHING AND FORGOT NOTHING!!!!

  13. Bill I am staring to sort of connect with you when you speak such politically incorrect talk!
    Our Sages had this to say:

    “One way out given to the Canaanites was to accept Israel’s terms. No autonomy but then no intolerance either…. The second method was to leave…. This idea in itself is not new to Zionism. Israel Zangwill suggested it in 1920, the British put it forward in the Peel Report of 1937 as did Avraham Sharon and Avraham Stern in the ’40s. Official Zionists opposed the plan due to moral hesitations (not a Jewish morality but one influenced by liberal emancipation and in continuation of their naive belief that the Arabs will agree to coexistence if we succeed in convincing them that Zionism is beneficial for them…. If the two foregoing are not acceptable — let it be as it may. There is no fourth solution of ‘autonomy’ in our sovereign area.”

  14. “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, no dialogs.” Abdullah Azzam

    In more than a century of the Zionist enterprise, Arabs made no concessions while the Jews gave way continuously. Triumphant return to the Promised Land immediately degenerated into buying land from Arabs; that’s not what Joshua ben Nun did. When the Ottomans titled unused land in the coastal plains, Arab notables rather than Jews got it through legal machinations; speak of Jewish lawyers and simpleton Arabs. Jews settled mostly the lowlands without significant Arab presence, drained marshes and cultivated sand dunes instead of claiming the land from aborigines. Jews did not significantly protest when the British stole most of the land they guaranteed us in return for our support in WWI and established Jordanian princeling in two-thirds of Palestine. Jews accepted yet another partition in 1947 which created a second Palestinian state beside Jordan. Jews won every war with Egypt but returned Sinai, a place where Hebrews received the law which molded them into a nation and a place of critical strategic importance to Israel. Jews prevailed in every conflict against Syria and now all but accepted to return the strategically indispensable Golan Heights. Palestinians – an insignificant enemy – pressed Israel for sweeping concessions even while they keep shelling Jewish towns. The Arabs did not give way on a single issue.

    Arabs protested Jewish settlement of Palestine; most Jews were unsympathetic to Zionist idea. Arabs always rejected massive Jewish presence while Zionist leaders implored Arabs to stay in the Jewish state. Sadat pressed Begin to evacuate Jewish towns from Sinai; Sharon concurred then and demolished Jewish villages in Gaza years later. Arabs refuse to accept Jews in their countries, but successfully insist that swarms of Arabs be citizens of the Jewish state.

    The Arabs consider the land rightfully theirs and fight for it. Smart and critical Jews rejected religion and doubt their right to the land. The balance of will favors the righteous.

  15. There is no right to return to a country under international law. Entry to a country is vested in that country’s officials, who can decide if an alien meets their qualifications to be allowed to enter the country. For the purposes of UN Resolution 194, it should be noted the Palestinians do not claim they want to return to Israel, they do not consider it their country and they do not pledge allegiance to it or to its government. So they have no rights whatsoever to return to a country they do not recognize and to which they do not claim affiliation by way of national identity, patriotic attachment or citizenship.

  16. Chutzpah = young man murders his parents then pleads with the judge for leniency because is is an Orphan!!! sound familiar?

  17. Ted,

    You are engaging in an absurd argument. Suppose the Arab League demanded that all Jewish men above the age of 13 be emasculated, and the UN endorsed it. Would we then be exploring legal arguments that refute the necessity of such a demand, or it’s relevance to human rights? In the end Israel is ours because we Jews have been able to defend it. It will remain ours as long as we can defend it and not one day longer. The UN, the LA Times, the Washington Post and the NY Times are irrelevant. They won’t be there to fight when the Jews are attacked again. Only the IDF matters, and the will of the politicians to defend their birthright.