then it’s a territory of what is left of Palestine after the existing states have defined their boundaries in order to be recognized as independent from Palestine….
… Shortlink – http://wp.me/PDB7k-W…….Revised – Sept 2012
The Palestinian RoR is based on UNGA res 194, which was written a year before UNRWA was formed. UNGA res 194 definition of a refugee is here. The UNRWA definition didn’t exist when UNGA res 194 was adopted, it is impossible that UNGA res 194 refers to the UNRWA definition.
Furthermore, there is no legal OR logical basis for Israel’s demand that RoR be tied to a peace agreement. It simply doesn’t make sense, it’s nonsense for people who don’t think or check.
A) RoR is an individuals right to decide to return or accept compensation, be they Jewish, Arab, Inuit. In order to return, they must, as individuals agree to live in peace INSIDE the country of return, as citizens of the country of return. (The country of return has the final right to justly veto on an individual basis).
B) A peace agreement however, is with a neighbouring entity to live alongside in reciprocal peace, with it’s citizens, who have not returned to what is now Israel. Those who have been granted RoR would be ISRAELI CITIZENS! Not Palestinian citizens. It just doesn’t add up! In fact, it’s really really stupid!
Resolutions and law covering RoR advocate “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”, it does not depend on a peace agreement between entities.
In order to address the question of Right of Return for Palestine refugees, please bear in mind Israel’s actual accepted & Internationally “acknowledged” and recognized boundaries Sovereign territories of Res 181, do not include territory illegally acquired by force/war or non annexed and illegally annexed territories since Israel’s declaration of Sovereignty.
Q: – Is the demographic threat to the Jewish state’s existence in it’s actual Sovereign territories? Or in the territories it acquired by war by 1949 and which it has never legally annexed? I.e., the ‘Greater Israel’ Israel has always aspired to be?
Fallacies about the Right of Return
Millions of Palestinians want to return to Israel.
Many Palestine refugees were NOT from the territory that was proclaimed as and became Israel. They were from non-Israeli territory that Israel has illegally acquired over 65 years
… refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000
At the time, the Israeli Government claimed it militarily controlled additional territories other than those of the State of Israel
In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev …
These additional territories have never been legally annexed to Israel. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, any war
Many of the Palestine refugees are from those areas. NOT ISRAEL!
The Palestinians do not have RoR because the Arabs told them to flee:
All civilians have a right to flee violence, no matter who starts a war or who tells them to flee or for what reason, because they are A) CIVILIANS. B) They might not have voted for, or even been able to vote for, the regime in power when hostilities began. C) Did the Palestinians of today vote for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? No, they didn’t. He was installed by a Jewish chap, Herbert Samuel. D) Did they vote for the Governments of the Arab States? No, they didn’t.
Fact is, they probably weren’t even born in 1920. Any still alive today were children when they were dispossessed in 1948.
RoR is an inalienable individual right to be recognized at the earliest opportunity. RoR does not depend on land ownership. It applies only to people who actually lived in a region, whether they owned real estate or rented real estate or were homeless bums living under a bridge.
Basic RoR applies only to protected persons who actually lived in the country of return, who agree to live in peace in the country of return. The refugee has the right to decide to return or opt for compensation. Finally, the country of return has the right to a valid refusal if the applicant does not meet the criterion.
Right of Return is dependent on a Peace Treaty:
Right of Return is an inalienable INDIVIDUAL right and choice, to be recognized at the earliest opportunity.
Q: – If RoR is an individual right and the Geneva Conventions say at the earliest practicable time after the cessation of hostilities, i.e., a cease fire or armistice, what legal basis is there for Israel’s demand that it be tied to a Peace Agreement?
A: – There is no legal basis for tying it to a peace agreement. It’s just another baseless Israeli demand.
Link to this segment
1) RoR Within Israel’s actual Internationally recognized Sovereign Territory
Right of Return will alter the Demographics of the Jewish State:
This cannot be true. Israel was guaranteed a majority of Jewish people in it’s actual sovereign territories. 538,000 Jews / 397,000 Arabs. There was already a minority of non-Jewish people at the start of major hostilities, which began with Plan Dalet prior to Declaration, recognition & the War of Independence. Only a part of this minority fled the violence or were ethnically cleansed from Israel’s Sovereign Territories. Yet, by August 1948, Israel declared that they would be a threat to demographics were they to return. “To repatriate those who had fled would be, in the words of Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, ”suicidal folly.“ “
Q1: – If those who fled were only part of a minority and non-partisan mathematics & our knowledge of the human reproductive gestation period tells us it was IMPOSSIBLE, how could this part of a minority have been a demographic threat were they to return just a few weeks later (by Aug 1948)?
A: – Simple, they weren’t! It was propaganda then, it’s propaganda now!
Even if they had all fled, on return they’d still have been a minority! Only people who actually lived in a region have RoR to it. Natural attrition has seen many already pass away. Every day their numbers dwindle. Today there are less Palestine refugees with RoR to the Sovereign territories of Israel than ever before.
Q2: – If their return didn’t threaten Israel’s existence, what was Minister Moshe Sharett talking about in Aug 1948?
Minister Moshe Sharett’s words in Aug 1948 tell us Israel’s intention even then, was to illegally keep the territories it had acquired by war. It’s actions have confirmed this. The Demographic Threat has been a fallacy perpetuated for 61 years. The Demographic Threat has been to Israel’s existence in territories which are NOT it’s own.
The Palestinians want Right of Return to Israel for all lineal descendants:The Palestinians have asked for Right of Return in accordance with UN resolutions which are as a matter of course based on UN Conventions.
According to UNRWA there are 3.5 to 4 million Palestinian refugees ready to flood Israel
UNRWA, the United Nations Relief & Works Agency
Under the UNRWA Mandate the term ‘Palestine’ refugee is a need-based definition and not for the purposes of repatriation or compensation as envisaged in UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 (III) of December 1948. UNRWA was only set up because of the unique set of conditions that apply to Palestine refugees
A) The protracted nature of the conflict B) Israel’s refusal to recognize even basic RoR and Israel’s illegal claims to territory OUTSIDE it’s Sovereign borders C) All Palestinians and Palestine refugees are stateless.
UNRWA’s working definition, is only for expediency in ascertaining who may qualify for ‘Assistance and Works’, while they are refugees. It’s numbers are not those who qualify for RoR to Israel’s actual sovereign territories.
” UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. “
Yet Professor Ruth Lapidoth perpetuates the fallacy on the Israeli Government web site. “According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.” The UNRWA mandate refutes this assertion completely.
Is she, a professor, really that ignorant? Of course she isn’t. The ambiguity of her assertion shows she is engaged in typical propaganda modus operandi. Planting the seeds of panic in order that there be no RoR at all. She does not say the Palestinians demand that all lineal descendants have RoR, she only says “there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA “….she then slyly adds…. ” If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory…etc” This is a typical propagandista’s strawman argument, enough to make people think this is the Palestinian demand. Israel is NOT REQUIRED to admit all those registered with UNRWA into Sovereign Israeli territory and the Palestinians have never officially demanded it. Their demand was on UNGA Res 194, which is based, as a matter of course, on the UNHCR statute definition. It does not allow for all lineal descendants.
2) ROR to the territories Israel illegally claims as it’s own: Of course RoR of all lineal descendants threatens Israel’s existence in these territories. But these territories are not Israeli.
Refugee status under the UNHCR Statute
Although the Palestine refugees are afforded ‘assistance’ whilst they are refugees under UNRWA and because of this they are not afforded ‘assistance’ under the UNHCR, they are never the less, still refugees and as such have RoR. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1950 states:
” D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.
When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.”