Annan hints refugees should not be given right of return to Israel

[eyl]

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan hinted Tuesday that Palestinians refugees should not be granted the right to return to the State of Israel.

In his final address to the Security Council, Annan said, "The two-state solution - Israel and Palestine - must respect the rights of the Palestinian refugees, but only within the context of preserving the character of states in the region."

Annan also chastised supporters of the Palestinians for their criticism of Security Council actions, where the United States has vetoed most measures critical of Israel.

"Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel's behavior," Annan said. "But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians."

Describing decades of resolutions and a proliferation of special committees, Annan asked if this had any effect on Israel other than to strengthen the belief "that this great organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process."

"Even worse, some of the rhetoric used in connection with the issue implies a refusal to concede the very legitimacy of Israel's existence, let alone the validity of its security concerns," Annan said. "What was done to Jews and others by the Nazis remains an undeniable tragedy, unique in human history."

Ha'aretz

[sam sarrha]

1. the whole mess is like Mexico invading California and driving everyone into Death Valley, then 50

years later offering them the Mohave Desert after they fenced off all the water and any place you could grow food and wont let them use the roads, if the kids will quit throwing rocks at them.. after shooting and killing about 800 or 900 children in the head with Faux rubber bullets a year and up to 9000 adults a year.. imposing shoot to kill curfews for weeks or months where people dont have running water or medications, and pregnant mothers cant get to the hospital because they will be shot, they ambulances are pulled over when they are in labor going to hospital and the engines are told to be stopped so the air conditioning cant be used and forced to sit for hours in Hellatious heat with the check point guards laughing at them...

then there is this silly Apartheid Bullshit.. there isn't any Apartheid..
see... http://www.mcc.org/gallery/04_09/photo_09.html but they did steal that tree.. in the foreground and another in back.. probably an olive tree a family depended on for food

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Why yes, it's exactly like that.

:eyes:

[Lithos]

3. Right of Return

I agree with that, though I do think there should be guarantees which provide recompense for land and assets taken following 1947, a certain freedom to visit old family areas (to visit relatives and to visit areas of significance to families such as graveyards), and to allow people to be buried in family graveyards. I also think a general development fund should be provided by Israel for education and economic development which benefits the Palestinians as a whole. There should also be some granting of citizenship (or fast-tracking thereof) by states which have essentially become the homeland.

This should also be mirrored for those Mizrahim who were forced out starting with 1947 onwards with a general development fund provided by those states in a manner which reflects the amount of people affected.

I think both groups have been affected as a result of this conflict and both need attention. The monies should not be done in a way which essentially amounts to an even swap with nothing going to the people, this needs to be drawn out of the system for the affected individuals, their successors, and the groups as a whole.

[cali]

4. That strikes me as awfully

Panglossian. Particularly the part about the Mizrahim. I just don't see it happening. I'd be pleased with compensation for Palestinians who lost land and assets.

[pelsar]

5. the compensation has to go both ways....

its not a matter of trying to decide "who suffered more" or who was kick out, who left voluntary etc etc etc...its a matter of closing open wounds. There is no "fair and just settlement in this conflict, there can only be an agreement on what is today, to compensate in some symbolic way those who have suffered on both sides...and then close the door and for those who scream "its not fair".....they should be told in whatever language is necessary that its now "over." and to get on with their lives.

[Lithos]

12. I think it is more likely

It is a pain which affects both sides and which must be addressed before any lasting positive peace is achieved. I also think it is good to tie together because negotiations are more effective when you are addressing a pain on both sides rather than a unilateral solution. I also think that it reflects the pragmatism of the current situation; I think this is a case where the clocks cannot be turned back and people have to accept something akin to the given baseline.

The borders must be addressed the same way. I personally would start at the 1967 border and negotiate changes from there. Yes, I think the core portion of Jerusalem should belong to the Israeli's as well as some of the obviously entrenched settlements, but I think they should give up something equivalent in return.

The Temple Mount is a bit special though, I personally think that given the huge cultural affinity to towards that portion, it should be controlled by the UN with guaranteed access by Palestinians and Israelis.

However, a lot of this is thinking out loud.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I don't agree about it being mirrored...

It's been a pretty cynical tactic of Israel to claim that both lots of refugees get equal compensation/consideration in order to wipe the refugee issue off the slate when it comes to negotiations. There is no way in the world that Jews who fled or were expelled in the years after the War of Independence/Nakbah (or Palestinians living in the US or Australia as citizens of those countries, for example) are in need of the sort of funding and help that stateless Palestinians in refugee camps in countries like Lebanon will need to start entire new lives. Most importantly when it comes to the issue of refugees, they should be looked at separately, as the settlement of any issues that the Arab states are responsible for is not the responsibility of the Palestinians and Palestinian refugees should not be held to hostage if the Arab states don't come to the table on the issue of the Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from their countries...

[eyl]

20. However

the issue of need is a pragmatic question, which has nothing to do with whether they have a to return.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, saying that Lebanon should allow the refugees in its territory to attain Lebenese citizenship (something they're currently prohibited from doing) is at least as valid a solution as moving them to Israel - after all, almost all the refugees there have spent their entire lives in Lebanon, are part (however limited) of the Lebenese economy, etc.

If, however, you frame the discussion in terms of rights instead, whether the Mizrahi refugees do or do not have a need is irrelevent. Unless you want to claim that their right is voided because they have no need - in which case Israel can argue that it shouldn't be liable for the fact that the Arab regimes deliberatly kept the Palestinian refugees in the camps - they are entitled to the possibility of return, even if they choose not to do so.

I prefer to use the pragmatic approach, for several reasons. First of all, the question of whether the Palestinians have a right of return in the first place is unclear in international law. I'm not aware of any instrument of international law that mandates a right of return for refugees, but even if such exists, to who does it apply? Whose definition is used, UNWRA's (which applies only to Palestinians) or the UNHRC's (which applies to all other refugees) - as we've discussed previously, the definitions are not the same). Furthermore, any such discussion ultimately becomes a discussion of justice, and IMO in this situation justice and peace solutions are mutually exclusive. If you think (as breakaleg apparently does) that Israel should be forced to accept the Palestians who wish to return, will we or nill we, whose is going to enforce that? Do you really think such an example would result in any sort of peace, whether short- or long term? Or consider for example the question of compensation. Should Israel compensate those Palestinians who left/were expelled? Should the Palestinians compensate Israel for those Israeli communities they destroyed? In the case of those destroyed in 1948, for what part of the destruction are the Palestinians liable vs. the other Arab states? Does Israel owe the Palestinians compensation for its acts against it? Do they, in turn, owe Israel compensation for terrorism? And so on.

Because of that, I prefer to use a pragmatic approach. Those Palestinians who were actually themselves refugees (that is, they actually lived here) - but not their descendents - should be allowed to return. Those who can prove property claims will receive either their property back or compensation for it if it's currently in use (in the case of land, given Israel's circumstances, I'd suggest a fund which would buy out any land owners who got the property rather than compensation). A fund, financed by Israel, the Arab countries, and international donors should be established to facilitate the resettlement of the rest of the refugees elsewhere (or the renovation of the camps*).

*In a lot of places, the "camps" are towns or neighborhoods of cities for all intents and purposes.

[The Magistrate]

24. The Point, Ma'am, Is Not Whether They Are In Need

The point is whether they lost properties to confiscation or forced sale, which the Jews who fled and were driven out of the various Moslem countries in the Near East certainly did in many cases, just as the Arab Palestinians who fled and were driven out of the portion of the Palestine Mandate that became Israel did. How the various individuals and their descendants have fared over the decades since has no bearing on this.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Sorry, but I think that is the point...

What's the point in doing a really narrow thing where some $$ are handed out to people who are going to still be as stateless and living in abysmal conditions (I saw a documentary on a camp in Lebanon and I wouldn't want my pet dog living in those conditions let alone another human being) but now with a pocket full of cash? There's no point to it, and to be honest to ignore the needs of some of the Palestinian refugees now is a massive cop-out of the highest order...

[The Magistrate]

28. They Are Different Items, Ma'am

Compensation for lost properties, in lieu of return to control of them, and relief of poverty, are seperate things. It is hard to imagine how a system of compensation for Arab Palestinian refugees could be constructed that would not be based on compensation for lost properties, paid to the heirs of their mostly now dead owners. Probably this would leave some out, as certainly not all who fled owned land or houses, and something would have to be worked out to cover these holes: some calculatuion of lost wages over a period, with interest, might be one means of doing this.

It seems to me you may miss some of the benefits of having a pocketful of cash as well. If the settlement is honestly constructed, with reference to current market values, the sums will be pretty large, not only in most individual cases but in aggregate. This cannot fail to stimulate economic activity, employment, and further profit, that will lift up pretty quickly the general condition of the people. The stateless condition would largely be remedied by the establishment of a state of Arab Palestine. Its currency today is the responsibility of those states in which these people reside who do not allow them a regular status under their laws.

[breakaleg]

6. If international law calls for the right of return after the fighting dies down, then I

see no reason for it not to apply to Israel. Why should they get special treatment? If it changes the nature of their state, that's really their problem.

[eyl]

7. How cavalier of you

[breakaleg]

11. How is that cavalier? The law shouldn't be changed for one group of people.

[eyl]

17. law should be changed?

You're the one demanding an exception - AFAIK, very few large-scale refugee problems - if any - have ever been settlet by repatriation.

Besides - even assuming that international law requires their return - a big "if" - just why do you expect Israel - or Israelis - to choose national annihilation over breaking the law?

[breakaleg]

21. National annihilation?

They wanted their own country in an area of the world where they are the minority. That's really there problem. If they hadn't forced them to leave in the first place, then they would have had to deal with this a long time ago.

[pelsar]

22. ....and that is why there is an israel...

if the jews hadnt fought in 48 and secured their state, it would be as its always been.....jews as second class citizens.....sorry if i dont apologise for our actions, option two (the one your suggesting) we've already experienced, and it wasnt to our liking.

and its not actually our problem.....its really a palestenian problem, their the ones who are really suffering: no real hope, constant pressures of occupation, now civil war, limited electricity in gaza, etc..

[breakaleg]

23. So now you have Arabs as second class citizens.

On the one hand you rail against injustice - when it's against you - but it's perfectly okay when it's against the next guy. That's one of the reasons why some people have issue with Israel.

Why not have a state where ALL the people who live there are equal?

[pelsar]

29. Arabs as second class?

Under Israeli law its obvious to all with basic knowledge of israel that they are not...its also obvious to all who have basic knowledge of israel that discrimination exists as it does in every other country in the world. However unlike the majority of the countries israel does have liberal laws that are constantly being tested and modified.


but this really made me laugh:
That's one of the reasons why some people have issue with Israel.

...if discimination was the really the problem then israel wouldnt even be in the news, with countries such as Zimbabwa, US, Mexcio, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Syrian, Iran, Turkey, Serbia, etc being much higher "talked about".

and the geographic and culture of the area, is very clear how jews get treated when in the minority.....

[Tom Joad]

9. I don't like the idea of enforcing forced ethnic cleansing. It is odd

that this can even be discussed as optional.

[Lurking Dem]

10. And the 800,000 Sephardim

and their descendants?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Why not?

It may be a problem for them however seeing I doubt many of them would want to leave Israel and return to their old homes...

[oberliner]

13. For refugees yes, but for the descendants of refugees?

I don't think that international law defines a refugee as someone other than the actual person who was forced to flee.

It appears that the Palestinians here are being accorded the special treatment, as their right of return is to apply not only to those who left in 1948 but also to their descendants.

[breakaleg]

15. I'm not sure how I feel about their descendants.

I would have to look around the world a bit and see how long it took the government in other areas to allow the refugees to come back. If it was within a timely fashion - say within few enough years that not much had changed in terms of the population of the refugees - then I would ask if Israel had made enough effort to allow them back in 40 years ago? Or did they prolong this with the intent of never allowing them to come back? If so, that would effect my opinion.

In either case, from what I've read, the number of refugees and their descendants who would actually choose to return is much smaller than those eligible to return, including any descendants.

And we also have to consider the number still living in refugee camps. If they have no other home or country of citizenship, then Israel has no choice but to take them back.

[pelsar]

16. shall we limit this policy to just israel....?

or as you say we can look around the world......if we do i'm afraid what you will discover is that some are still in refugee or reservations...., many others if given the oppertunity and are not restricted by laws ) eventually move on and got on with their lives.

american indians...100+ years stuck in reservations (I"m short on details)

155,000 Polisario refugees: since 1975
They fled Western Sahara from invading Moroccan forces in 1975 shortly after Spain granted independence to the vast desert territory.

and the palestenains are still 'waiting" (and attacking)

israel has in fact made very little effort to "bring them back"...given the intent of the palestenian policy of destroying Israel (or maybe not, depending upon whos in power and which year it is).....so there is no reason to tempt fate.....

[Tom Joad]

8. I don't anyone, including Annan, has the right to take away other people's rights.

[oberliner]

14. UN: Israel overplayed Annan statement

A source in the United Nations on Wednesday protested the Israeli Foreign Ministry's interpretation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's final speech to the UN Security Council on the Middle East conflict.

The source accused the Foreign Ministry of trying to "spin" Israeli journalists into writing incorrectly that Annan ruled out the return of Palestinian refugees to the final borders of Israel in the speech.

In the sentence in question, according to the official UN press office, Annan called for "a solution that respects the rights of Palestinian refugees and is consistent with the two-state solution and with the character of the states in the region."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881888447&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[The Magistrate]

25. Secretary Annan Has Spoken Wisely And Well Here, Sir

[originalpckelly]

26. There should be a third party court established...

to look at the land ownership before Israel declared its independence to see how much land was actually owned and improved by Jewish settlers. That land should be totally secure in the hands of Israel. The Peel Commission borders are the ones which should be honored. A second ring of land, which was not inside the Peel Commission borders, but which has been settled by massive numbers of Israelis, should be bought from the Palestinians. In Jerusalem there should be a co-sovereignty. Israelis will belong to their own government and establish their own laws, Arabs will have their own government and their own laws. Any transgression by an Israeli against an Arab or an Arab against an Israeli will be prosecuted in an international court.

*Nazareth might also have to fall under the co-sovereignty jurisdiction, or even a third state, because Christian Arabs live there.