What should Israel do?

[untermensche]

Israel is not serious about wanting peace.

If it was serious it would create a map outlining what it thinks peace should look like. A starting position.

Since when in negotiations is giving a starting position unneeded?

And until it does, only fools think it is serious. Israel is about as serious as Americans were when they negotiated with the native Americans.

Did you not read what I said??

You're asking them to break one of the basic rules of negotiation.

Having an honest opening position is not breaking anything.

The day Israel produces a map of their opening position they are serious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not read what I said??

You're asking them to break one of the basic rules of negotiation.

Having an honest opening position is not breaking anything.

The day Israel produces a map of their opening position they are serious.

Only a fool would produce such a map in the situation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's not what Netanyahu said.

He said Israel has unilaterally decided it will keep most of the settlements. Non negotiable.

Why does Israeli crime pay so well?

First off, you refuse to support you're views with links, then you distort the views of the links that I provide. Here's what the article stated: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would give up "some settlements" in occupied Palestinian land to help secure a peace agreement but would limit as much as he could the number of enclaves removed".

This seems to be a very old position from him, one he has probably reversed in recent years because he has more recently said:

I have no intention of evacuating any settlement or uprooting any Israelis

Also:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon proposed on Monday night for the government to respond to the killing of three Israeli settlers with a wave of settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories, including the establishment of a new settlement in their memory, a senior Israeli official told Haaretz newspaper.

Also:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he suspended construction in West Bank settlements because of American pressure, an Israeli news site reported.

Netanyahu told a group of settler leaders that the activity of the planning council of Israel’s Civil Administration, the body responsible for authorizing construction in the West Bank, had been partially suspended because the United States demanded it, the news site nrg.co.il reported.

Netanyahu has claimed at various times that he will not forcibly evacuate the settlements under any circumstances. OTOH, he got in serious trouble for saying that the settlers would have to decide for themselves whether or not to stay in their homes or accept their new status as residents of a united Palestine; now he's got Naftali Bennett telling him to ANNEX the settlements altogether and completely abandon any possibility of a Palestinian state, a position which closely resembles his recent statements since the Hitchiker business.

The Palestinians have stated that they are open to trading some settlements for similar land in Israel proper.

It's been more than a decade since that offer had any credibility; it was originally floated by Arafat, and it was rejected by the Israelis altogether.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course they would reject a plan that would remove the Jewish nature of the state

The plan that would remove the Jewish nature of a state that was never Jewish to begin with, whose residents didn't want to live in a Jewish state, and which could only be MADE a Jewish state by either disenfranchising or forcibly removing the non-Jews from the region? That's certainly a reasonable thing to reject.

If Jewish immigrants couldn't find a way to integrate into their new country and win the acceptance of their neighbors, then they definitely wouldn't be able to make a homeland there without expelling said neighbors in a violent confrontation.

And so the KKK should be able to keep out black people?

Exactly the opposite: you cannot expect to move into a mostly-black town, inhabited primarily by black people, and then take over the government and pass a law that says only white people can vote. The locals are going to be pissed, they're probably going to do everything in their power to keep you from succeeding. That's actually the reason why organizations like the KKK exist: because it's really hard to oppress huge groups of people without the threat of violence and occassional terrorism (FYI, that's also why the the Irgun and the Lehi were created).

Israel knows that if they aren't dominant there won't be peace.

They're dominant NOW, and there isn't peace. Israel is already getting most of everything that it wants; the reason the conflict continues us because they want MORE.

 

[Jayjay]

Israel is not serious about wanting peace.

If it was serious it would create a map outlining what it thinks peace should look like. A starting position.

Since when in negotiations is giving a starting position unneeded?

And until it does, only fools think it is serious. Israel is about as serious as Americans were when they negotiated with the native Americans.

Did you not read what I said??

You're asking them to break one of the basic rules of negotiation.

And you are asking the Palestinians to do the same, by requiring that they drop the right of return before the negotiations even begin. For once, you could try to apply the same standard to Jews and Arabs.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

<snip> I've posted about it before.

<snip>

The law of the right of return for Palestinian refugees No. (1) for the year 2008

The right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes and property and compensation for their suffering is a sacred and inalienable right that cannot compromised or exchanged; it is beyond the scope of jurisprudence or interpretation or referendum.

The right of return is the natural individual and collective civil and political right that moves from parents to children and does not disappear over time, by the signing of any agreement, and it may not be disposed of or waived in any way.

The Zionist occupation bears full responsibility for the political, legal and humanitarian and moral suffering of the Palestinian people and the non-recognition of the right to self-determination. Britain bears historical responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian people. The international community bears full responsibility to lift and remove the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians have the right to sue the Zionist occupation for their suffering caused to the Palestinian people and their demands for compensation for damage to their emotional or material damage.

Resettlement of Palestinian refugees may not be a substitute for the right of return.

"Gives an inch" or "budges" is not specified in this law. It's a reaffirmation of the Palestinians' basic human rights. They can -- and eventually WILL -- sue Israel for the violation of those rights, but the actual settlement -- whether it is return to their original homes or monetary compensation/reparations for the lost property -- is for the courts to decide, not for Abbas or anyone else.

But that's a huge can of worms for Israel. Recognizing that Palestinians have basic human rights means opening the door to further law suits and prosecution in the ICC for their various iniquities under the occupation. If they find themselves in a position where they can be sued for the right of return, there's a long list of things they could also be sued for.

Just because I point out things you aren't willing to believe about the Palestinians doesn't mean I'm lying.

It does when the things you "point out" contradict the observable truth.

 

[Jayjay]

So if you want to use past behaviour as some sort of precedent as to how Palestinians might achieve peace with Israel, they are much more likely to get it by force than by negotiation.

Yep, any student of history would of course agree that the violent approach has led to things going swimmingly.

As an aside, I seem to recall Lebanon having a pretty peaceful relationship with Israel after signing the armistice agreement right up until Black September. Lemme go crack the ol' history book and see what happened there.

PLO retreated to Lebanon, started fucking things up like they usually do, and a civil war happened. But that was way before the Israeli occupation. I have no doubt that had it not been for Hezbollah, Israel would still occupy southern Lebanon and there would be a number of settlements there.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why in the world should Israel give up a bunch of land when they know the peace will soon be broken?

Because that's exactly what they've been asking the Palestinians to do for 50 years. If that's such a reasonable demand, why aren't they willing to accept it?

If war breaks out again in the future, guess what we'll do? We'll insist on an armistice based on the 1967 borders. If the Palestinians build a robot army with the power to drive Israel into the sea in their 2040 Universal Jihad, guess what we'll do? We'll kick their robot asses and insist on an armistice based on the 1967 borders.

Exactly--take Israel piece by piece. That's the strategy they're after.

Nothing outside the 1967 borders actually belongs to Israel; they're not "taking" anything in that case.

It's always talk of force Israel, force Israel. Never about forcing the Palestinians.

That's because Israel has all the power here; they're the only ones who need to DO anything, and they're the only ones who refuse. The Palestinians are being asked to DO NOTHING and wait for Israel to respect their rights. Since doing nothing has not accomplished this, they have chosen armed resistance instead.

That, again, leaves the burden on Israel to change the situation, since they alone of the power to end the conflict by giving up their claims to Palestinian territory.

YOU have a thousand different excuses as to why the Israelis shouldn't have to give up the settlements. These are all rendered irrelevant by a single question: How many Palestinian settlements are in Israel?

Of course Israel won't draw the map--that's not how you negotiate. You don't walk into negotiations using your final position as your starting point!

You don't get to use "return the thing I stole from you" as a starting point in negotiations. Except, of course, for bad-faith negotiations, such as hostage situations and terrorist standoffs.

 

[untermensche]

Having an honest opening position is not breaking anything.

The day Israel produces a map of their opening position they are serious.

Only a fool would produce such a map in the situation.

No, only a scoundrel wouldn't.

 

[Deepak]

The plan that would remove the Jewish nature of a state that was never Jewish to begin with, whose residents didn't want to live in a Jewish state, and which could only be MADE a Jewish state by either disenfranchising or forcibly removing the non-Jews from the region? That's certainly a reasonable thing to reject.

Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that it was rejected? Most reasonable people seem to agree that the antagonism during the '20s was the cause of this agreement breaking down, and due to the escalating nature of the events that a one-state solution would be unworkable.

Yep, any student of history would of course agree that the violent approach has led to things going swimmingly.

As an aside, I seem to recall Lebanon having a pretty peaceful relationship with Israel after signing the armistice agreement right up until Black September. Lemme go crack the ol' history book and see what happened there.

PLO retreated to Lebanon, started fucking things up like they usually do, and a civil war happened. But that was way before the Israeli occupation. I have no doubt that had it not been for Hezbollah, Israel would still occupy southern Lebanon and there would be a number of settlements there.

I still don't understand why this would be the case. Israel has never laid claim to those lands, the entire reason for any of the incursions into Lebanon being to retaliate against the PLO. All events were conducted with the support of the South Lebanese Army, and prior to Hezbollah's creation had already agreed to a withdrawal plan with the Lebanese. If anything I see Hezbollah as another reason for their continuing military interest in the area. It was symbiotic, where Israel chasing the PLO led to Hezbollah coming into being, and Hezbollah coming into being reinvigorated Israeli military involvement in the area - all ultimately being a result of the use of force by the PLO.

The Lebanese and the Israelis were a bunch of little Fonzies until the Palestinians showed up and started their cross-border attacks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that it was rejected?

In the first place, TEXT of the agreement contradicts both the spirit and the implementation of the Peel Commission recommendations. As do the statements of the Zionist participants in the commission in the late 1930s, who explicitly stated that their goal was a Jewish state in ALL OF PALESTINE.

As Ben Gurion himself put it:
"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: a Galilee almost free of non-Jews."

Under the 1920 agreement, they were supposed to share the land and work together for co-development. By the 1930s, the Zionists had other ideas.

Most reasonable people seem to agree that the antagonism during the '20s was the cause of this agreement breaking down, and due to the escalating nature of the events that a one-state solution would be unworkable.

Which is supposedly one of the reasons the Zionists rejected the idea, much to the chagrin of the Arab leaders who were still hoping to tamp down those hostilities and form a plurality.

The problem is, even in the 1920s there was a growing presence of Zionists who weren't interested in plurality or in co-habitation with Arabs. A large number of them were openly antagonistic to their Arab neighbors, which lead to both racial and religious tensions and ultimately to mutual vandalism, street fights and finally to riots. By the 1930s, the hardline Zionists, rather than work to reduce tensions and call for reconciliation, seized the opportunity presented by the unrest and argued that Arabs and Jews shouldn't have to cohabitate, and if the Balfour Declaration was to be implemented, the Arabs would have to be separated. The Zionists weren't happy about THIS idea either, but as Ben Gurion later argued, getting half of the land all to themselves was better than having to share all of the land with Arabs.

 

[Deepak]

In the first place, TEXT of the agreement contradicts both the spirit and the implementation of the Peel Commission recommendations. As do the statements of the Zionist participants in the commission in the late 1930s, who explicitly stated that their goal was a Jewish state in ALL OF PALESTINE.

As Ben Gurion himself put it:
"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: a Galilee almost free of non-Jews."

Under the 1920 agreement, they were supposed to share the land and work together for co-development. By the 1930s, the Zionists had other ideas.

Most reasonable people seem to agree that the antagonism during the '20s was the cause of this agreement breaking down, and due to the escalating nature of the events that a one-state solution would be unworkable.

Which is supposedly one of the reasons the Zionists rejected the idea, much to the chagrin of the Arab leaders who were still hoping to tamp down those hostilities and form a plurality.

The problem is, even in the 1920s there was a growing presence of Zionists who weren't interested in plurality or in co-habitation with Arabs. A large number of them were openly antagonistic to their Arab neighbors, which lead to both racial and religious tensions and ultimately to mutual vandalism, street fights and finally to riots. By the 1930s, the hardline Zionists, rather than work to reduce tensions and call for reconciliation, seized the opportunity presented by the unrest and argued that Arabs and Jews shouldn't have to cohabitate, and if the Balfour Declaration was to be implemented, the Arabs would have to be separated. The Zionists weren't happy about THIS idea either, but as Ben Gurion later argued, getting half of the land all to themselves was better than having to share all of the land with Arabs.

I'm not even able to follow your reasoning here. Faisal-Weizmann was signed in 1919, and immigration which was to be encouraged under the auspices of that agreement led to this response. What ideas should they have had in 1930?

 

[Jayjay]

PLO retreated to Lebanon, started fucking things up like they usually do, and a civil war happened. But that was way before the Israeli occupation. I have no doubt that had it not been for Hezbollah, Israel would still occupy southern Lebanon and there would be a number of settlements there.

I still don't understand why this would be the case. Israel has never laid claim to those lands, the entire reason for any of the incursions into Lebanon being to retaliate against the PLO. All events were conducted with the support of the South Lebanese Army, and prior to Hezbollah's creation had already agreed to a withdrawal plan with the Lebanese. If anything I see Hezbollah as another reason for their continuing military interest in the area. It was symbiotic, where Israel chasing the PLO led to Hezbollah coming into being, and Hezbollah coming into being reinvigorated Israeli military involvement in the area - all ultimately being a result of the use of force by the PLO.

The Lebanese and the Israelis were a bunch of little Fonzies until the Palestinians showed up and started their cross-border attacks.

What started the war is not relevant. Israel claims it didn't start the war with Egypt and Jordan either. However, it is an undisputable fact that every territory that Israel has occupied has attracted Jewish settlers like cockroaches, except Southern Lebanon. And Southern Lebanon also happens to be where Hezbollah's resistance eventually managed to force Israel to withdraw. I don't think this is a coincidence. Also, while Jewish settlers never really had the chance to start making trouble in Lebanon, the border village of Ghajar is an example of Israel policy towards the borders of the land it occupies: durign the occupation Israel let the village expand to the northern side of the border, which meant that when Israel withdrew the village got split in half with obvious complications for its residents. During 2006 war Israel recaptured the northern part as well.

Had there not been Hezbollah or similar organization, Israel likely would have cleansed the southern parts of Lebanon from PLO and when the land was sufficiently pacified, settlers would have started moving in like they did everywhere else.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In the first place, TEXT of the agreement contradicts both the spirit and the implementation of the Peel Commission recommendations. As do the statements of the Zionist participants in the commission in the late 1930s, who explicitly stated that their goal was a Jewish state in ALL OF PALESTINE.

As Ben Gurion himself put it:
"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: a Galilee almost free of non-Jews."

Under the 1920 agreement, they were supposed to share the land and work together for co-development. By the 1930s, the Zionists had other ideas.


Which is supposedly one of the reasons the Zionists rejected the idea, much to the chagrin of the Arab leaders who were still hoping to tamp down those hostilities and form a plurality.

The problem is, even in the 1920s there was a growing presence of Zionists who weren't interested in plurality or in co-habitation with Arabs. A large number of them were openly antagonistic to their Arab neighbors, which lead to both racial and religious tensions and ultimately to mutual vandalism, street fights and finally to riots. By the 1930s, the hardline Zionists, rather than work to reduce tensions and call for reconciliation, seized the opportunity presented by the unrest and argued that Arabs and Jews shouldn't have to cohabitate, and if the Balfour Declaration was to be implemented, the Arabs would have to be separated. The Zionists weren't happy about THIS idea either, but as Ben Gurion later argued, getting half of the land all to themselves was better than having to share all of the land with Arabs.

I'm not even able to follow your reasoning here. Faisal-Weizmann was signed in 1919, and immigration which was to be encouraged under the auspices of that agreement led to this response. What ideas should they have had in 1930?

Why do you keep saying "should" like there's some moral imperative we're supposed to be applying? If you insist on wearing your historian hat, then let's analyze history.

Historically, the question is about what could have happened. The Hebron riots and many others were instigated by a variety of factors -- and people -- all with different origins. The Zionists didn't do themselves any favors by antagonizing the Arab majority, and Faisal's mention of "Turkish intrigue" in the prior agreement nods in that direction as well. Neutralizing the problem and seeking a fair and mutual agreement for all demographics could still have been possible even in the 1930s; that process would have been much more difficult in the short term (It sure as hell was in Lebanon) but it would have ultimately resulted in a unified Palestine with an either secular or non-denominational coalition government.

That is not, however, what the Zionists wanted, and they had no reason to put in all that work to lay the groundwork for peaceful coexistence. Instead they went in the exact opposite direction: "If the Arabs don't like us, then FUCK EM!"

 

[Deepak]

I'm not even able to follow your reasoning here. Faisal-Weizmann was signed in 1919, and immigration which was to be encouraged under the auspices of that agreement led to this response. What ideas should they have had in 1930?

Why do you keep saying "should" like there's some moral imperative we're supposed to be applying? If you insist on wearing your historian hat, then let's analyze history.

Historically, the question is about what could have happened. The Hebron riots and many others were instigated by a variety of factors -- and people -- all with different origins. The Zionists didn't do themselves any favors by antagonizing the Arab majority, and Faisal's mention of "Turkish intrigue" in the prior agreement nods in that direction as well. Neutralizing the problem and seeking a fair and mutual agreement for all demographics could still have been possible even in the 1930s; that process would have been much more difficult in the short term (It sure as hell was in Lebanon) but it would have ultimately resulted in a unified Palestine with an either secular or non-denominational coalition government.

That is not, however, what the Zionists wanted, and they had no reason to put in all that work to lay the groundwork for peaceful coexistence. Instead they went in the exact opposite direction: "If the Arabs don't like us, then FUCK EM!"

I keep saying should because it's the past tense of shall - to expect or intend to.

It's generally accepted that the reason for the increasing Arab dissatisfaction was due to Jewish immigration. From the link that Arctish posted earlier:

http://www.merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new#The British Mandate in Palestine

In Palestine, the situation was more complicated because of the British promise to support the creation of a Jewish national home. The rising tide of European Jewish immigration, land purchases and settlement in Palestine generated increasing resistance by Palestinian peasants, journalists and political figures. They feared that the influx of Jews would lead eventually to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestinian Arabs opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule, and they opposed massive Jewish immigration because it threatened their position in the country.

And from the agreement which you repeatedly claim the Zionist movement rejected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann[16]

3 January 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Articles:

Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen

Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein

And

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference were:

"The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity South of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr el Karaon, thence to El Bire following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El Korn and the Wadi Et Teim thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity West of Beit Jenn, thence Eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the South a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the West the Mediterranean Sea.

The details of the delimitations, or any necessary adjustments of detail, shall be settled by a Special Commission on which there shall be Jewish representation."

That's quite the peculiar rejection. You would have us believe the land was stolen (read - purchased) and that the intentions of David Ben-Gurion in the 30s (following a decade of violence in response to immigration specifically agreed to in Article 4 of Faisal-Weizmann) should contradict the stated intentions at the time this document was signed? And you'll have us believe that a peaceful coexistence would have been possible following the events of the '20s? Can you articulate the specific terms of this potential detente, rather than making vague sentimental statements, and provide some evidence from that timeframe which supports your case?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not read what I said??

You're asking them to break one of the basic rules of negotiation.

And you are asking the Palestinians to do the same, by requiring that they drop the right of return before the negotiations even begin. For once, you could try to apply the same standard to Jews and Arabs.

Both sides know that the right of return is incompatible with Israel's continued existence.

There's no point in negotiating when one side is insisting on the other's destruction as an objective. The objective is to find a position that both can accept--one should not include points which are utterly impossible for either side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was a lie then, and it's a lie now.

The law of the right of return for Palestinian refugees No. (1) for the year 2008

You're missing the important part:

It turns out that Abbas signed a law in 2008 to enshrine this “right” to destroy Israel in PA law. Not only that, but this law ensures that any agreement that modifies this “right” is null and void, and high treason.

Under PLO law, if Mahmoud Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel that doesn’t pave the way for the destruction of Israel, he is guilty of high treason and is subject to the death penalty.

Just because I point out things you aren't willing to believe about the Palestinians doesn't mean I'm lying.

It does when the things you "point out" contradict the observable truth.

You had the article in front of you, yet you still are blind to what it's saying.

 

[Togo]

And you are asking the Palestinians to do the same, by requiring that they drop the right of return before the negotiations even begin. For once, you could try to apply the same standard to Jews and Arabs.

Both sides know that the right of return is incompatible with Israel's continued existence.

Which is why the demand is for the Right to Return to be addressed in some form - generally as an acknowledgement accompanied by monetary compensation.

You've been told this before.

 

[Deepak]

Both sides know that the right of return is incompatible with Israel's continued existence.

Which is why the demand is for the Right to Return to be addressed in some form - generally as an acknowledgement accompanied by monetary compensation.

You've been told this before.

If you'll remember, approximately 30 gigabucks were allocated as part of the Camp David accord specifically as a compensatory fund. As it stood, one of the sticking points in that deal for Arafat was compensation versus physical right of return.

 

[Togo]

Which is why the demand is for the Right to Return to be addressed in some form - generally as an acknowledgement accompanied by monetary compensation.

You've been told this before.

If you'll remember, approximately 30 gigabucks were allocated as part of the Camp David accord specifically as a compensatory fund. As it stood, one of the sticking points in that deal for Arafat was compensation versus physical right of return.

Yes, the issues were whether some people should be allowed to return anyway, provided that their numbers didn't destabilise the demographics, whether the funds should be under Palestinian or Israeli control, and to what extent Palestinians who were no longer resident in Palestine should benefit. Arafat baulked at giving up a physical return for a cash settlement the disbursement of which would be controlled by his enemies.

Since then there have been several peace initiatives that spell out a cash settlement in some detail, including the Hamas proposals after they got elected, two sets of Egyptian proposals, and Abbas' televised of the scheme. Physical return in all these schemes is limited to very small numbers, precisely to avoid the demographics issue. It's a solved problem.