UNRWA and Palestinian refugees – it is time to tell the truth - by David Collier

There will be no solving this conflict until this farce is removed from the Middle East. The evidence is everywhere. It is why they are not building homes in Gaza or Ramallah. Why those living in PA areas are also called refugees. It is all nonsensical UNLESS you see this for what it is. The Palestinian refugee was born into a paradigm of no to normalisation – and they cannot exist outside of it. If we are to move forward and find any accommodation between the Jews of Jerusalem and the Arabs of Ramallah, we have to end these lies.

David Collier..
Beyond the Great Divide..
11 May '20..

In May 2016 I spoke at a panel event on the possibility of a two state solution. My talk focused on the key issue of the entire conflict – the reason the ‘Palestinian refugee’ situation can never end. At the time I called for the ridiculous definition of a Palestinian refugee to be thrown into the dustbin of history and for UNRWA to be scrapped alongside it. A newly published book by Adi Shwartz and Einat Wilf called ‘the War of Return‘ lays out the case far better than I ever did. This piece isn’t a review of the book as much as support for the truth that is written inside. I rarely agree with a book as much as I did with the ‘War of Return‘. If you want to see all the evidence that supports these arguments, I really suggest reading it.

The truth is not right wing

Adi Schwartz used to work for Ha’aretz. Einat Wilf was a member of parliament for the Labour Party. The two authors were both long time members of the Israeli left. For many, what occurred between 1993 and 2008 would fundamentally challenge long-held beliefs. Between the Labour Party’s victory in the 1992 election and its 2009 electoral disaster – the entire peace camp of Israel collapsed. Israelis experienced first-hand something that could not be denied – the paradigm of the Oslo peace process was built on falsehoods.

Israelis were forced through this awakening, as the fake doves of Oslo turned into the bombs of the second intifada. Far removed from the blood flowing down Israeli streets, western politicians – and even large community organisations in the Jewish diaspora – still hold on to the Oslo process. It creates a divide that makes it seem as if Israel has shifted to the right. It has not – it has just stopped believing the lies.

Denying Israel’s right to exist

The truth of this conflict is, and has always been, about a denial of Israel’s right to exist. Before 1967, that was an obvious statement to make. Since 1967, a false narrative spread, suggesting that the Palestinians (as a body, not as individuals) are willing to make peace with the Jewish state.

The Right of Return is a call for the end of Jewish self-determination, the destruction of Israel, and the Palestinians openly say that they will *never* give it up. Everything people in the west, including Jews in the diaspora, choose to hear beyond that message is delusional. Adherence to the idea of a negotiated settlement becomes an act of faith built without any supporting evidence.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work.  

Justice? No. Admitting that Palestinian "return" is meant to destroy Israel? Yes - by Elder of Ziyon

Massad is not interested in justice or mercy. He just wants to see the Jewish state destroyed, and keeping Palestinians in misery is the way he wants to see it done.

Elder of Ziyon..
04 December '19..

Joseph Massad is professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University.

Even though he has written articles that are so antisemitic as to be indistinguishable from neo-Nazi literature, and even though he is a homophobe who accuses gay activists of colonialism and imperialism, he still gets respect. Which makes one wonder if it is possible for an Arab academic to ever say anything to outrageous for the Left to cheer him.

He just wrote an article for Middle East Eye where he uses his normal antisemitic rhetoric, claiming that Israel's Law of Return is illegal and that Palestinian "right of return" is international law.

The irony is not one that Israel does not recognise the right of refugees to return to their homeland; rather, Israel recognises only the right of Jews - whom it claims, based on its religious and colonial myths, were refugees from Palestine who had lived in exile for 2,000 years - to “return”, while it denies that right to Palestinians, whom it recognises as having been displaced from Palestine.

Of course, no one claims that Jews returning to Israel is based on international law. It is based on Israel's right to create its own immigration policy, as every other country has.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Tracking the changes in BBC reporting of Palestinian demand for ‘right of return’ - by Hadar Sela

...The term “ancestral land” is of course often used in reference to lands belonging to an indigenous cultural people or community as well as in connection to the place of origin of previous generations. The BBC’s widespread introduction of the non-neutral terms “ancestral lands”, “ancestral homes” and “ancestral homelands” over the past nine months into multiple platform reporting on the topic of the Palestinian demand for ‘right of return’ is hence particularly noteworthy – and all the more so given that audiences were serially denied important background information in the same reports.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
01 January '19..

In July 2013 the BBC News website produced a backgrounder intended to inform audiences about what it considered to be the five “Core Issues” of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians: Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees and security. Although that backgrounder is no longer available online in its original form, in a section titled ‘refugees’ the Palestinian position was presented thus:

“Formally, they maintain the “right of return”, arguing that without it a great injustice would not be put right. However, there has been regular talk among Palestinians that this “right” could be met by compensation.”

In other words, the BBC presented the Palestinian demand for the ‘right of return’ for refugees as a formality and steered audiences towards the view that the issue would be resolved on a practical level by means of compensation.

Over the past nine months, however, audiences have seen changes in the BBC’s presentation of that topic – primarily but not exclusively in reporting on the ‘Great Return March’ events.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

A giant first step to reducing the malevolent impact of UNRWA - by Sarah N. Stern

The Trump administration opposing the Palestinian claim for the “right of return” would be a historic development—not just to the American taxpayer, the Jewish people and the State of Israel, but to the Palestinians themselves.

Sarah N. Stern..
JNS.org..
27 August '18..

U.S. President Donald Trump gave the Jewish people a gift of historic proportions by taking the issue of Jerusalem off the table back in December. On Aug. 25, President Trump gave a gift that is arguably of equal or greater value to the Jewish nation by significantly reducing by $200 million the aid that the United States gives to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine.

PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat predictably called the decision “disgraceful,” and said that President Trump was “meddling in the internal affairs of other people in an attempt to impact their national options.”

Since when is it that an American president deciding how to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars is considered “meddling in the affairs of other people”?

Beyond that, according to an Aug. 25 report on Israeli Channel 2 news, the Trump administration announced that it will oppose the Palestinian claim for the “right of return” for the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees displaced by the 1948 war.

If true, this would be a historic development—not just to the American taxpayer, the Jewish people and the State of Israel, but to the Palestinians themselves.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Actually, the ‘March of Return’ explains a lot - by Jonathan S. Tobin

If the goal is two states, then why do the Palestinians keep talking about “return?”

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
29 March '18..

For some in the Palestinians’ international cheering squad, the March 30 “Land Day” demonstrations could be a long-hoped for turning point. If the massive protests planned for the Gaza border go off on Friday without violence, then the battle against Israel will, they hope, no longer be depicted as one primarily about terrorism.

Instead, it will be portrayed as a civil-rights struggle comparable to the one waged in the United States against segregation.

But there are a few problems with that formulation.

The first is that the organization planning this “nonviolent” demonstration is Hamas—an Islamist terror group, not the NAACP. Violence is part of Hamas’s raison d’être, so expecting any action associated with the group to be completely divorced from violence is a long shot. The purpose of any march on a heavily armed border where terror incidents are a regular occurrence will likely be to provoke the Israel Defense Forces into acting to prevent the security fence around Gaza from being beached. The goal will be to produce more “martyrs” among those the terror group already uses as human shields so as to further embitter the conflict, not to effect change.

The key question about these demonstrations is not whether efforts to cross into Israel will lead to bloodshed. The most significant thing about the “Land Day” rally is its theme: “the Great March of Return.” The Palestinian emphasis on the concept of “return” isn’t merely a marketing slogan; it’s a reminder that 70 years after Israel’s birth, the Palestinians are still clinging to the idea of eliminating the Jewish state.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Without question, our roots are stronger than the lie

...Our ancient roots in this land are inconceivably deeper than any of these groups' mendacious propaganda. We need to work wisely, with patience and determination, and just as we succeeded on the battlefield, we can win the battle for hearts and minds.

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
02 June '15..

For years now the U.N. has been used as a platform to question the Jews right to their state. The Palestinian Return Centre is one of a string of terrorism abettors whose goal is to annihilate Israel, which is what is meant by "return," flooding Israel with millions of Arabs.

The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948 had not been here from time immemorial. Most of them arrived in the 19th century with Egyptian ruler Ibrahim Pasha, and later with the waves of Jewish aliyah and the launch of the British Mandate. Just look at how the U.N. defines Palestinian refugees (which, incidentally, is different than refugees anywhere else in the world): Anyone who was in Palestine two years before the State of Israel was established.

The PRC has strong ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Europeans and the U.N. know it. Beside the old and new anti-Semitism ("just" anti-Israelism), the false premise has existed for years that if the West sacrifices the Jewish state, it will be spared the sword of Islam. And now the PRC has been selected to advise the U.N. birds of a feather.

Mahmoud Abbas Doubles Down

...While the Obama administration openly roots for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s defeat in the upcoming elections and issues vague threats about sanctions on Israel if he is reelected, the real obstacle to peace remains Abbas and his people’s political culture that makes ending the conflict impossible. Until the U.S. recognizes this and starts treating Abbas as the problem rather than a possible solution, U.S. Middle East policy will continue to be a clueless failure.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine.
08 December '14..

To listen to anyone in the Obama administration, Mahmoud Abbas isn’t just Israel’s best hope for a peace partner. From President Obama on down, the Palestinian Authority leader has been spoken of in almost heroic terms as a genuine moderate and a man who has shown himself willing to make real sacrifices for peace. This portrayal has always been sheer fiction but it has been bolstered by Abbas’s clever decision to speak in one manner to the Western and Israeli press while singing a very different tune to Arabic and Palestinian media. This was proved again last week when he told an Egyptian TV program (the transcript from which was published by Memri.org, that essential window into the Arab media) that not only would he never recognize Israel as a Jewish state but also insisted that “we cannot close the door to those who wish to return,” a clear allusion to a demand for the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

In speaking in this manner, Abbas’s double game is effectively debunked by his own words. The so-called “right of return” is a touchstone of Palestinian rejectionism, based as it is on the notion that millions of descendants of the several hundred thousand refugees from the 1948 War of Independence should be allowed to return to pre-1967 Israel and effectively transform it into an Arab-majority nation. Such a demand is not only incompatible with the notion of peace; it is an explicit rejection of efforts to end the conflict. In effect, Abbas’s idea of a two-state solution is to have one Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and part of a divided Jerusalem in which no Jews will live and another inside Israel’s 1967 lines in which an Arab majority will dominate a Jewish minority.

Even more interesting is the fact that in this interview, Abbas claimed that there were “six million” such persons waiting to enter Israel. According to the Times of Israel, this was not an attempt by Abbas to echo the symbolism of the Holocaust by positing a population of so-called victims of Israel that is the same as the number of Jews killed by the Nazis. Instead, they think it is an attempt to claim that the refugees are as numerous as the current Jewish population of Israel, which amounts to approximately six million persons. They may be right about that but given Abbas’s background as a Holocaust denier (his doctoral thesis questioning the number of Jews killed in the Shoah is still being promoted by official Palestinian media), it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But no matter why Abbas spoke of “six million” refugees, the number is bogus since it exceeds even the widely inflated claims of UNRWA, which has done its best to perpetuate and promote the narrative of refugee victimhood.

Why would Abbas embrace rejectionism in this manner even though President Obama still thinks he is a champion of peace?

The “Right of Return” Is Not About “Refugees”. Not Now, Not Ever.

...The half of the Palestinian polity that is not openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction is unwilling to recognize Israel as the Jewish state … For those of you who think that this has anything to do with the refugee issue — you’re wrong. In 1947, there wasn’t a single refugee, and the Palestinian and the Arab world was not willing to recognize a nation state for the Jewish people. That is a core issue, the core issue …

Rick Richman..
Commentary Magazine..
23 March '14..

In “A Jewish State,”the Wall Street Journal notes that “the right of return, with its implicit promise to eliminate Israel, is the centerpiece of the conflict” between Israelis and Arabs. The Journal observes that it is a “right” recognized “for no other refugee group in the world,” and that its acceptance by Israel would risk “a demographic time bomb that could turn the country into another Lebanon, sectarian and bloody.” The Journal explains the Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state as follows: “As to why Mr. Abbas won’t accept a Jewish state, it’s because doing so means relinquishing what Palestinians call the ‘right of return.’”

The Journal’s otherwise excellent editorial confuses a tactic and a goal. The reason the Palestinians won’t accept a Jewish state is not because it means relinquishing the “right of return.” It is the other way around: they won’t relinquish the “right of return” because it would mean accepting a Jewish state. Nor is this simply a matter of substituting the converse for the Journal’s formulation. Rather, it reflects a fundamental point that Ron Dermer (then one of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s closest aides and currently Israel’s ambassador to the U.S.) made in a May 2009 AIPAC presentation. Dermer’s point was that the “core issue” in the conflict was not refugees, but recognition:

The half of the Palestinian polity that is not openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction is unwilling to recognize Israel as the Jewish state … For those of you who think that this has anything to do with the refugee issue — you’re wrong. In 1947, there wasn’t a single refugee, and the Palestinian and the Arab world was not willing to recognize a nation state for the Jewish people. That is a core issue, the core issue …

The Palestinians use a definition of “refugee” that makes their “refugeehood” hereditary. Other refugees get resettled; Palestinian refugees get born. They may have never lived in Israel, but they are classified as “refugees” at birth, on grounds that their grandparents (or great grandparents) were refugees 65 years ago. This is why each year the number of Palestinian refugees increases, while the number of other refugees in the world decreases. The Palestinians have been repeatedly offered a state to which their refugees could “return,” but they repeatedly reject it, clinging to a specious “right” of “return” to Israel not because it is necessary for the “refugees,” but because it is a tool in the fight against the Jewish state.

Painfully obvious there is nothing to talk about

But the Palestinians are still stuck on what is, in essence, among the first principles of any peace deal: recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Part and parcel of that would mean discarding the right of return.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
27 October '13..

The silence couldn’t last forever. The one thing that was conspicuously successful about the peace negotiations initiated by Secretary of State John Kerry was the way the Israelis and the Palestinians managed to keep their mouths shut about what’s been discussed since they agreed to start meeting again in July. While some reports have surfaced indicating that there has been no progress, today’s scoop by Israel’s Channel 2 gives us a lot more insight as to where the parties stand. And what we’ve learned makes it obvious that the meetings are every bit the fool’s errand that most observers thought they would be all along. According to the Israeli TV station, a “disgruntled Palestinian official” has leaked the Palestinian proposals offered for peace. As the Times of Israel reports:

According to the report, the Palestinians are also insisting that they gain control over water, and control at their sides of the Dead Sea and border crossings; that a Palestinian state be able to sign agreements with other states without Israeli intervention; that Israel release all Palestinian prisoners it holds; and that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants be granted the right to choose to live in Israel or the Palestinian territories as part of a final agreement.

Let’s digest that for a minute. Not only did the Palestinians arrive at the peace table not prepared to compromise on their ability to militarize their putative state or join in offensive alliances against the smaller and more vulnerable Israel that would result from a peace treaty authorizing the birth of “Palestine.” They are also insisting that the millions of descendants of the Arab refugees of the 1948 War of Independence be allowed to “return” to Israel and effectively end the existence of the Jewish state. If that’s peace, what’s their idea of war?

Lyn Julius - When Return is a Recipe for Mayhem

...When Levana Zamir of the Association of Jews from Egypt in Israel suggested cooperation to fight for the rights of both sets of refugees, the Zochrot conference speakers at first expressed public enthusiasm. In the coffee break, however, they mumbled their excuses: no cooperation would be forthcoming. One assumes they would rather stick to their sickening recipe for mayhem and strife.

Lyn Julius..
Times of Israel..
06 October '13..

Last week, a ghoulish spectacle played itself out in Ramat Aviv. On the supposed site of the Arab village of Sheikh Munis, abandoned in 1948, a conference ‘realising the return’ of Palestinian refugees, organised by the radical-left organisation Zochrot, planned the minutiae of the demise of the Jewish state. Under the guise of securing justice for Palestinian refugees (scandalously – funded by European governments – but that’s another story), conference speaker after speaker charted the systematic ‘decolonization’ of Jewish Israel.

One can picture Arab families shattering the demure chatter in the cafes in North Tel Aviv, trudging through the streets loudly demanding back homes now lived in by Israeli Jews. The ‘Israeli occupiers’ would have the right to decide to leave their homes or stay and pay the ‘Palestinian refugee owner’ the ‘market value’ of their house. The ‘Palestinian refugee owner’ would decide between recovering ‘his’ house or taking the money, with all that entailed. The children of the Israeli ‘occupiers’ would not be allowed to inherit their homes.

How gracious. This is what the ‘one state solution’ would look like: Arabs reclaiming rights ‘misappropriated’ by the Jews.

Lest you dismiss all this talk of Return as the fantasies of a tiny minority of Israeli anarchists, let me tell you the unpalatable truth: a majority of Palestinians polled in 2011 – 89.5 percent – support a ‘right of return’ to Israel proper.

Zochrot did not for a moment pause to ask itself whether the Palestinians had a legal ‘right of return’. It took such a right for granted.

The Toxic Enablers - UNRWA vs. Peace

...In fact historically, the Arab world has a significant amount of responsibility for the situation, having encouraged and facilitated the refugees' flight – to a large degree. But in this narrative it is none other than the UN and UNRWA who are the toxic enablers who are now helping fuel this story for generations.Why UNRWA does this is evident: Its continued existence is at jeopardy. It has every reason to entangle itself into Palestinian society and to become more of an obstruction to a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Asaf Romirowsky..
Pundicity/YNet..
27 August '13..

The John Kerry-Martin Indyk negotiating team needs to come to terms with the fact that the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in the Palestinian "Right of Return," the collective demand claiming a legal and moral right for Palestinian refugees, and more importantly, for their descendants from around the world, to return to ancestral homes in Israel that were once part of Mandatory Palestine. The "right of return" is central to Palestinian national identity and is the barrier to any successful peace agreement.

Indyk is very aware from his past involvement in Camp David in 2000 that insisting on the Palestinian Right of Return is a clear non-starter for Israel as it is mostly used to deflect attention from the real hard honest talks. The real issues include mutual recognition then a discussion about land swaps.

While it maybe easier or convenient at times to believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is purely territorial, a closer look at the reality reveals that Palestinian rejectionism of a Jewish State at large is what prolongs the conflict rather than the question of Jerusalem or the borders of 1949 or 1967. To that end, the Palestinian identity as perpetual refugees has become UNRWA's raison d'être.

Consequently, those hoping to see genuine progress in this next round of negotiations face two major obstacles: UNRWA's anomalous treatment of the Palestinian refugees which prolongs the conflict; and, second, the lack of an independent Palestinian identity which is not anti-Zionist at its core. Both have enabled UNRWA to become an integral fixture in Palestinian society that fuels the conflict rather than defuses it.

When Media Promotes the Rot of Return

The so-called “right of return” is a non-starter for any peace agreement. Yet the Christian Science Monitor sympathizes with uncompromising Palestinian claims. That’s the real tear-jerker.

Pesach Benson..
Honest Reporting Backspin..
19 August '13..

Pass the tissues. The Christian Science Monitor breaks out the violins for Palestinian refugees who want to return to the villages they fled years ago.

If you’re looking for intelligent discourse on the matter, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Reporter Ben Lynfield plugs maximalist Palestinian demands that are rotten to the core. This Monitor dispatch is a real disservice, for several reasons.

First of all, contrary to the conventional wisdom, there’s no legal basis for the so-called “right” of return.

Secondly, any responsible article about the “right” of return has to explain its consequences for Israel, not just bury a brief Mark Regev reaction at the bottom of the story. If the more than one million registered Palestinian refugees flooded what is today the state of Israel, it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Next, Lynfield takes at face value exaggerated and manipulated Palestinian accounts of Deir Yassin and its impact on the refugee situation today. Fatima al-Haj Ali Adawi, told Lynfield:

Washington Post Flacks Arab 'Peace' Plan

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
09 April '13..

Secretary of State John Kerry, in his bid to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, is keeping most of his diplomatic efforts under wraps, except for touting a 2002 Arab peace plan as an "important element" in getting negotiations under way.

In turn, the Washington Post, in dispatches by correspondent Anne Gearan from Jerusalem and Ramallah, gives the Arab peace plan prominent mention -- while omitting a critical poison pill that would doom Israel as a Jewish state. ("Kerry hints he is hoping for a broad Israeli-Palestinian peace deal" April 9)

What exactly is the Arab League peace plan? It's the outgrowth of a Saudi initiative that subsequently was modified and then approved by the entire Arab League. Gearan reports that its aim is a comprehensive peace agreement in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. To make it seem more palatable, she adds that borders probably would have to be adjusted to leave close-in settlements on the Israeli side, with Israel in exchange ceding some of its land to a Palestinian state.

But there's far more to the Arab League peace plan -- and all of it poisonous language with lethal consequences for Israel.

Propaganda dressed as scholarship - Welcome to BU

Richard L. Cravatts..
Times of Israel..
29 March '13..

Seeming to give credence to Orwell’s observation that “some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them,” in early April, Boston University will be hosting a Students for Justice in Palestine-run “Right of Return Conference,” yet another example of how purported scholarship about the Middle East is frequently biased and diluted by ideology.

Most sentient observers of the Palestinian issue know that the “right of return” issue is a core tactic in rendering real peace, any viable Arab/Israeli solution, effectively impossible, that the prospect of some 5-7 million Palestinian refugees flooding into what is now Israel would, as University of Haifa professor Steven Plaut put it, “derail Israel demographically and turn it into the Rwanda of the Levant.” That is exactly why every one of the participants of the BU conference are part of a retinue of the hate-Israel crowd, a traveling road-show of politicized scholars, propagandists, and pseudo- and non-academic activists with only a thinly-veiled animus towards Israel, Zionism, and Jews in general. What this conference clearly is not is a true academic or scholarly exercise designed to reveal some rational and reasonable solutions in the Middle East; instead, it is yet another opportunity for ideologues with an anti-Israel, anti-Western agenda to trumpet their perverse views under a cloak of academic respectability, and here even with Boston University’s imprimatur.

The demand for a right of return, a notion referred to by Palestinians and their supporters as “sacred” and an “enshrined” universal human right granted by UN resolutions and international law, in fact, has no legal or diplomatic standing at all, and is part of the propaganda campaign that is based on the thinking that if Israel cannot be eradicated by the Arabs through a military war, it can be effectively destroyed by forcing it to accept demographic subversion.

In the first place, it uses the fraud as its core notion that the Palestinians were “victimized” by the creation of Israel, and that they were expelled from a land of “Palestine” where they were the indigenous people “from time immemorial,” as historian Joan Peters put it in her book of the same name.

More importantly, far from being either a “sacred” or, for that matter, legal right, the right of return is a one-sided concoction that deliberately misreads United Nations resolutions for political advantage, and conveniently embraces only those portions that fit the intent of Arabs to make good on their intent to “drive Israel into the sea.” In continually repeating the lie that they are victims of the “Zionist regime” and that they were expelled from a country of their own and condemned to unending refugee status, the Palestinians ‒ and their Arab enablers ‒ have prolonged the myth of victimhood.

Which? Thousands of his countrymen slaughtered or give up his dream of destroying Israel?

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
16 January '13..

The poll cited by Rick Richman earlier, showing that 56 percent of Palestinians oppose the “everyone knows” parameters of a two-state solution, would come as a surprise only to someone who has slept through the last 13 years, during which Palestinian leaders repeatedly rejected Israeli offers along those lines. But what polls can’t answer is whether this opposition is deep-seated and resistant to change, or shallow and easily reversible if only Israel would agree to a settlement freeze, or prisoner releases, or whatever the Palestinian demand du jour for resuming negotiations is.

Last week, however, the Palestinian Authority answered that question decisively: It announced that it would rather leave hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to rot in the hell of war-torn Syria than grant them refuge in the West Bank, because the price of doing so was for those specific refugees to renounce their alleged “right of return” to Israel. In other words, saving thousands or even tens of thousands of Palestinian lives was less important to PA President Mahmoud Abbas than preserving his dream of someday destroying the Jewish state demographically by flooding it with millions of Palestinian refugees.

The issue arose last month, after Syrian forces bombed Yarmouk, the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. Dozens were killed, and about half the camp’s 150,000 residents fled, becoming homeless at the height of the worst winter of the past decade. So Abbas, via UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, sought permission from Israel (which controls the borders) to let these refugees enter the PA. Israel did agree, Abbas later admitted to journalists in Cairo. But it imposed one condition:

Interested in nothing less than the ruin of the State of Israel

Prof. Efraim Inbar..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper..
No. 195, 15 January '13..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Though much of the international community sees Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as a serious partner for peace, Abbas’ words and actions prove that he is interested in nothing less than the ruin of the State of Israel. Instead of preparing his people for painful concessions and peaceful coexistence with Israel, Abbas glorifies armed struggle, insists on Palestinian refugees’ “right of return” to Israel, and acts to criminalize and demonize Israel.

A little-noticed Reuters story on January 10, 2013, reports that Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA), rejected a conditional Israeli offer to let Palestinian refugees in war-torn Syria resettle in the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas rejected Israel’s offer because he thought it would compromise the claims of these refugees to return to their homes in Israel lost during the 1948 war. According to this report, Israel agreed to the resettlement on the condition the refugees sign a statement relinquishing claims of return to Israel. Yet Abbas rejected this condition and said “it is better they die in Syria than give up their right of return.”

Instead of helping his people in distress, Abbas prefers to cling to “the right of return” – a demand that no Israeli government will ever accept. Palestinian leaders have for years rejected attempts to alleviate the condition of their refugees by resettling them in proper housing in Gaza and the West Bank, instead preferring to keep the refugees and millions of their descendants in shanty towns and camps, as political pawns in the struggle against Israel. These refugees constitute an important element in the Palestinian self-image of victimhood and martyrdom.

Most of the international community rejects this Palestinian demand, understanding that a mass influx of Palestinians could destroy Israel’s Jewish character, and that this is a deal-breaker issue. No Israeli-Palestinian peace can develop if the PA insists on the “right” of return. Yet nobody in the international community spoke out against Abbas’ obstinate and radical refusal to take up Israel’s offer to resettle Syrian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Palestinian leadership missed another opportunity to demonstrate that it can behave in a constructive fashion and be of help to its people. Instead of pragmatic politics, we once again see Palestinian adherence to radical goals that prolongs Palestinian suffering and produces obstacles to peace.

Giving Up Palestinian Right of Return?! Just Kidding!

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
05 November '12..

It happened during an interview of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on an Israeli television channel. Abbas was asked whether he wanted to go back to his boyhood home in Safed, which is now in Israel. "I want to see Safed," Abbas replied. "It's my right to see it but not to live there." For good measure, Abbas added that a future Palestinian state should include only the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Abbas' remarks set off a firestorm across all parts of Palestinian society. It was denounced as heresy and treason for seemingly dropping Abbas' own long-time demand of a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their former homes in Israel. Of all the issues dividing Israel and the Palestinians, a Palestinian "right of return" is perhaps the toughest nut to crack. To Israel, it amounts to nothing less than demographic elimination of the Jewish state -- a green light for millions of Palestinians to swamp Israel.
And yet, here was Abbas, forfeiting the right of Palestinians to return to Israel under his vision of a peace agreement.

The “Right of Return” and UN Resolution 194

Eli E. Hertz..
mythsandfacts.org..
08 October '12..

Resolution 194, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 1948, addressed a host of issues, but only one paragraph out of 15 dealt with refugees created by the conflict. Resolution 194 attempted to create the tools required to reach a truce in the region. It established a conciliation commission with representatives from the United States, France and Turkey to replace the UN mediator. The commission was charged with achieving “a final settlement of all questions between … governments and authorities concerned.” The Resolution’s “refugee clause” is not a standalone item, as the Arabs would have us think, nor does it pertain specifically to Palestinian Arab refugees.

Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.

One paragraph has drawn the most attention: Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee an unconditional Right of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.
2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”

The resolution also recommended that for those who did not wish to return, “Compensation should be paid for the property … and for loss of or damage to property” by the “governments or authorities responsible.”

Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right of return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used – “governments or authorities” – suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation.

Fresnozionism - Hot springs, heavy drinkers, failed banks — and Palestine

Fresnozionism.org
30 November '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/11/hot-springs-heavy-drinkers-failed-banks-and-palestine/




You may have noticed a news item in your local paper today about the parliament of Iceland passing a resolution recognizing the state of ‘Palestine’ according to pre-1967 lines.

Apart from the fact that Iceland is the first European country to do this impossible feat — that is, recognize a ‘country’ with borders that make a hostile claim on the territory of another country, one with no economy except the international dole, no single government (despite claims, Hamas and the PLO are not ‘unified’), and whose essence is to deny self-determination to another nation — there is another interesting fact about it.

You will not read this interesting fact in your paper, because it won’t mention it. It took Evelyn Gordon, writing in the so-called ‘neo-con’ Commentary magazine to notice it. Let me quote the resolution in full, which your newspaper or radio/TV newscaster won’t do:

“Alþingi [the Icelandic parliament] resolves to entrust the government to recognize Palestine as an independent and sovereign state within the pre-1967 Six Day War borders.

Also, Alþingi urges Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile through the means of peace agreements on the basis of international law and resolutions of the United Nations, including the mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

Alþingi reaffirms that the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and also recalls the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes in accordance with resolutions reaffirmed by the United Nations.

Alþingi demands that the conflicting parties in the Arab-Israeli Conflict cease warfare and acts of violence forthwith and respect human rights and humanitarian law.” [my emphasis]

Gordon - Iceland Recognizes State of Palestine and “Right of Return”

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contention
30 November '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/30/iceland-palestine-right-of-return/

In an effort to woo the uncommitted, pro-Palestinian advocates frequently insist that one can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. In theory, that seems self-evident. But in practice, it’s often false. Just consider the parliament of Iceland, which on Tuesday became the first Western parliament to officially call for Israel’s eradication.

I’m sure many of the parliamentarians who voted for the resolution didn’t realize that was what they were doing; they just thought they were voting to become the first Western country to recognize a State of Palestine in the 1967 lines. Indeed, the resolution even urged Israel and “Palestine” to sign a peace agreement for “mutual recognition.”

Except, it also affirmed “the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes.”